Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON WATER BILL

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 25th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Northern Ireland (Remoteness Grant)

Lord Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government intend to review the Northern Ireland Remoteness Grant.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): We shall be reviewing the grant in the course of this year.

Lord Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that owing to Government policy and remoteness the Northern Ireland agriculture industry has an income ratio of only 78 per cent. compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, which in terms of hard cash represents a loss in income of more than £7·9 million per annum?

Mr. Hughes: This is known to me. The problems of Northern Ireland agriculture are carefully considered by us in the Annual Review discussions, in which the Ulster Farmers Union is represented. I have discussions, too, with the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. As

I said, we shall be reviewing this carefully, and I know that the noble Lord is particularly interested in the disparity in the costs of feeding stuffs between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We shall be considering what weight to give to this during the review of the grant.

Sir Knox Cunningham: While we are grateful to the Minister for reviewing this matter, may I ask him to pay careful consideration to the difficulties which arise because of the sea between this part of the United Kingdom and the other and the disparities which farmers very genuinely suffer as a result?

Mr. Hughes: I am conscious of the sea which separates us. That is why a remoteness grant is already in existence.

Food Prices

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps he is taking to prevent further increases in the retail price of food to housewives.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): We are continuing our existing arrangements for price surveillance, which are designed to ensure that increases are consistent with the Government's prices policy.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has not the Minister observed that food prices have risen by 2s. 6d. in the £ since devaluation, by 4s. 10d. in the £ since October, 1964? Is he aware that since devaluation the journal Grocer, has noted 14,828 food price increases? What is the Ministry doing to arrest this rip-roaring inflation?

Mr. Hoy: The figures produced by the Grocer are open to debate. They distort the picture considerably. Between 1964–69 food prices rose by 21·5 per cent., all prices rose by 23·2 per cent. and earnings rose by 38 per cent.

Mr. Godber: Would the right hon. Gentleman add to these interesting figures his confirmation of the fact that during 1969 food prices rose by £357 million or 6·4 per cent., a very large figure, as I am sure he would agreed?

Mr. Hoy: I would like to check that figure. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had their way, prices would be pushed up even further.

Mr. Hazell: Can my hon. Friend tell me by how much food prices would rise if the policies of the Opposition were carried out?

Mr. Hoy: I would not like to answer for the Opposition in that respect, but I do know that food prices would rise substantially.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT as full a list as possible of the increases in food prices between January, 1960, and January, 1965, and January, 1965, and January 1970, respectively, and where actual figures are not available percentage increases, to show the difference in food price increases on a comparative basis between the two stated periods of time.

Mr. Hoy: I regret that information about prices of individual foodstuffs is not available prior to November, 1967, except in respect of the October of each year. Figures showing the increases between October, 1959, and October, 1964, and between October, 1964, and October, 1969, respectively, were given in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 12th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 407–10.]

Mr. Lewis: What a terrible thing that the previous Government did not keep figures! They would have been helpful. But probably hon. Members opposite had something of which to be ashamed. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if on occasion he could publish the fact that his Ministry is not only refusing to grant increases but is instructing some of the manufacturers to reduce prices, this would help the electoral position, which is now definitely improving for us?

Mr. Hoy: Let me say clearly that we have had great co-operation from the food manufacturers.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear!

Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed. The hon. Member might think that they should be a little more rebellious and should put up their prices so that people would come and complain to us about them. We have had their co-operation. My Department's comprehensive system of price surveillance covers all significant food and drink prices and over 90 per

cent. of consumer expenditure in that sector.

Mr. Prior: Is not the real answer that the Minister should give his hon. Friend that food prices have risen twice as fast under the present Government as under the Conservative Government and that this Government are the first to tax food by imposing the selective employment tax?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member has obviously just arrived. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] May I repeat— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noise is too bucolic.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that the hon. Member might not have been present when I answered the original Question—I do not know whether he was—but if he was here, I am sorry for saying that he was not. Between 1964 and 1969 food prices rose by 21·5 per cent. and all prices by 23.2 per cent., so that food prices showed less of a rise, whilst earnings rose during the same period by almost 38 per cent.

Import Substitution

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution to import substitution has been made by British agriculture during the 14 months ended 1st March, 1970.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is not possible to make a meaningful assessment over such a period.

Sir G. Nabarro: Why does the Minister continue to boast to the farmers that his import substitution policy is such a hilarious success? Is this not as bogus as all of his other food and farming policies?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must not use exaggerated language, although we have come to expect it from him. He will know perfectly well that over the years output has been moving upwards, and we want this to continue. This is what is important.

Mr. Stodart: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that import substitution could really help mutton and lamb? Has he seen the answer given by his hon. Friend yesterday that last year the supply from the home market to total consumption was only 33 per cent. of the total compared with 43 per cent. two years


ago? Is this not a devastating indictment of the policy of so-called import substitution?

Mr. Hughes: It is not a devastating indictment because output has been going up consistently over the years. I have answered a number of Questions about sheep over the last few months, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has asked some of them. I would agree with him and the House that there has been a decline in the national sheep flock, and it is our policy to check and offset this. This is being discussed as part of the Review consultations.

Farming, East Midlands (Report)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the latest report of the University of Nottingham on farming in the East Midlands, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what conclusions he has drawn therefrom.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I have read this report, which shows that in 1968–69 average net farm income in the area fell.

Mr. Farr: Has the Parliamentary Secretary observed that from this document it may be seen that both the sheep and the cattle populations fell in 1969 compared with 1968? As that no doubt has not escaped his attention, what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Mackie: I have told the House, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman before, that taking one year in agriculture does not lead to any meaningful result. The hon. Gentleman must take the figure over a period. Although the number of cattle and sheep may have fallen a little in that period, it does not necessarily mean that it is falling all the time.

European Economic Community (Sugar Production)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the surplus of European Economic Community sugar production on the working of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Mr. Hoy: None, Sir.

Mr. Farr: Are not the failure of the European Economic Community to respect the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and its action in building up huge surpluses of sugar causing grave difficulty to developing countries which depend entirely on their sugar income for their foreign exchange?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed. We lend our support to sugar producers in the Commonwealth and developing countries as the best way of allowing them to earn their own livings. We would hope that the E.E.C. will find it possible to join the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the E.E.C. has dumped its surpluses on the free market with the help of subsidies and that the example of Australia in joining the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is extremely good?

Mr. Hoy: I think that nearly everyone will agree that the policy which has been followed by the Government has been the best for the sugar industry as a whole and for the developing countries. That is why I said that I hoped that the E.E.C. would find it possible to join the Agreement.

Mr. Godber: As the Question refers to the E.E.C., would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government in any negotiations for British entry to ensure that we not only maintain but increase our production in this country, because it is important that we should have an adequate share of our own market?

Mr. Hoy: Indeed. My right hon. Friend who was then Foreign Secretary in July, 1967, made it clear when he said that for the period up to 1974 our commitment under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was a contract which we must fulfil. He also said that we would wish to discuss with the Six how the interests of the developing country members of the Agreement could be safeguarded in the longer-term.

Milk Production

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the average profit to be.


made by an efficient farmer, before charging any salary to himself or his wife, from milk production with a herd of 50 cows on some 80 acres of average grassland in the Home Counties, for the years 1968 and 1969; and what he estimates the farmer will receive in 1970 after the price review.

Mr. Mackie: We do not make such estimates, but the Report on Farm Incomes in England and Wales, in Tables 7 and 8, summarises the available information for 1967–68. The corresponding report for 1968–69 will be published shortly. The outcome of the 1970 Review is not a matter for today.

Mr. Hall: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I have made a personal survey of some of the farms of the size mentioned in the Question in my constituency? It appears that the average farmer who is farming less than 100 acres is getting about 6 per cent. return on capital employed. As farmers have to pay approaching 10 per cent. for money, in the Minister's view is there any future in farms of this size?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, I would say that there was a future for farms of this size.

Mr. Godber: What about the Home Secretary?

Mr. Mackie: I have plenty to do answering for myself without answering for others. I think that such farms have a future. We do much to help them with schemes, co-operation and such like.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the Home Secretary an agricultural Minister in his own right as looking after the interests of Northern Ireland? Can we have the Government's view, because there seems to be a distinct divergence between the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I just mentioned that.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Alfred Morris.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice—

Mr. Speaker: A little too late; Mr. Alfred Morris.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Question refers to the Price Review, can my hon. Friend say how many cost-plus price reviews there have been in the last 20 years, and when they were?

Mr. Mackie: Two; one in the election year 1964 and one two years ago.

Mr. Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. You have just ruled, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was not in time to give notice of an Adjournment debate. This is the first time that I have heard this Ruling. May I suggest, with great respect, that it needs clarification? Giving such notice is frequently clone to cut an argument short. Surely an hon. Member has the right to give this notice at the time he chooses?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) is an old Parliamentarian, but we are wasting Question Time, which I must protect. I called the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) to ask a supplementary question. I had to protect his right to put a question. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) had an opportunity for expressing indignation after that.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the profitability of milk production at the present moment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The profitability of milk production is one of the matters being examined with the industry in the Annual Review.

Mr. Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very difficult at present to make milk production profitable? Does he agree that one of the ways in which he could help is to take a far tougher line with the Irish Republic? Why does he allow them to get away with this? Will he take off the kid gloves and really deal with the problem of these cheese exports to this country?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are quotas on butter exports from the Irish Republic and there is also a voluntary restraint agreement on cheese to which it is a party.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend please try to explain to hon. Members opposite that if we wish to export to the Irish Republic we must take some of their commodities? As we want to see an extension of exports and trade with all countries, will he carry on his excellent policy?

Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. What he says is true, and it has been the policy of successive Governments. There must be a balance between exports and imports, and exports to the Irish Republic have been increasing year by year. On the other hand, under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement it exports dairy products to this country, but the amount is limited.

Mr. Godber: Is that the right hon. Gentleman's intention in his next statement to the House to make milk production less unprofitable?

Mr. Hughes: Whilst we welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House after his illness, and are all glad to see him looking so well, he knows perfectly well that I cannot answer that question.

Epizootic Abortion Order (Offences)

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have taken place for offences against Section 2 of the Epizootic Abortion Order 1922 in each of the last five years.

Mr. Mackie: Local authorities have not notified any prosecutions under this Order during the past five years.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great disquiet felt by the agricultural community about the fact that cows which may have aborted within the previous two months are being sold on the open market and infecting other cattle? Will he take steps to take action under this Order?

Mr. Mackie: It is difficult to take steps under this Order. My reply illustrates

the practical difficulties which successive Governments have had to face in dealing with this question. We should avoid legislation which cannot be effectively enforced. I know that this is a difficult matter and that farmers are worried about it, but if they want herds to be accredited and to avoid this difficulty, they should find out whether the animals have been tested or test them themselves before putting them into the herd.

Statistics

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officers in his Department are engaged in the collection of statistics.

Mr. Mackie: Most of the basic data are provided by farmers, food processors and fishermen, and by fee-paid market reporters. Some of our staff spend part of their time in the collection of statistics, but this is not readily quantifiable. The main work is in the processing of these figures, which involves the equivalent of about 400 staff in our statistics and data processing divisions.

Mr. Wiggin: As on the last occasion when the Parliamentary Secretary answered Questions he was unable to answer at least half a dozen, including such simple questions as the cost of growing an acre of barley, would he apply the 400 members of his Department a little more assiduously to their task?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir. We collect an enormous amount of statistics. To have collected the individual costs for barley all over the country would have cost far more than would have been justified.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many officials in the Welsh Department and the Ministry of Agriculture are specifically responsible for advising the Secretary of State for Wales in his price review negotiations?

Mr. Mackie: Not without notice.

Fishing, East Coast (Oil Slicks)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct a survey of the effect of oil slicks on fishing, particularly shell fishing, off the East Coast of Great Britain.

Mr. Hoy: The Fisheries Departments already keep a close watch on fish and shellfish landed, and there is no evidence to suggest that contamination or damage occurs on any scale.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the help of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Defence, it has been impossible to trace the source of recent oil slicks off the east coast of Scotland? Is he aware that there is great concern among the fishermen of these coasts, and will he do as much as he can to trace where these slicks originate?

Mr. Hoy: We do our best to trace them. They cause considerable trouble and I should like to help the hon. Gentleman. We should like to find out who is responsible.

Dr. Gray: In view of the threat to entertainment resorts, such as Great Yarmouth, from oil slicks, what is the hon. Gentleman doing to encourage the patrol vessels under his control to make immediate reports so that effective action may be taken?

Mr. Hoy: I assure my hon. Friend that the slicks are immediately reported when they are discovered so that we may take the necessary action.

Pig Production (Returns)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the level of returns to pig producers in the remainder of 1970 is at least as good as the level of return obtained from exporting pigs in the period before he introduced control of these exports.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Government assurances relate to the guaranteed price which is determined after the Annual Review in the light of all relevant factors. On that I must ask the hon. Member to await my statement to the House.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for controlling the export of pigs recently. Is he aware that the only reason why producers have exported them was that the returns abroad were much better than those at home? Now that producers have been denied this opportunity abroad, could he give an assurance that they will be

given a chance of at least as good a return in the home market as they can receive overseas?

Mr. Hughes: Exporters always sell abroad because they get a good price. That is a very simple point. The Annual Review consultations are now proceeding.

National Plan Targets

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the targets for agriculture set out in the National Plan still represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As I announced in November, 1968, the broad objectives of the selective expansion programme have been revised and rolled forward to 1972–73.

Mr. Jopling: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the Question, which refers to the National Plan? Either the National Plan has failed, or it seems that Government can for ever shrug off their responsibilities over targets by just extending the programme for another few years, so that the targets are never reached, nor do we ever know what is happening.

Mr. Hughes: As always, the hon. Gentleman's deductions are wrong. He knows perfectly well that it is unrealistic to have precise commodity targets on a year-to-year basis. We plan ahead, and that is what we have done on this occasion. We have confidence that we shall achieve our objectives.

Mr. Hooson: Does not a written reply yesterday disclosing that 67 per cent. of our lamb was imported during the past year show that on the livestock side there is a great tendency for the country to fall behind in achieving the targets?

Mr. Hughes: We have been importing New Zealand lamb since the days of the last Liberal Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well. I have given an answer on the question of mutton and lamb, and I think that the position is quite clear.

Hill Sheep Farming

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the heavy losses suffered by hill sheep farmers during the last


two years from inclement weather on the moors and fast drivers on the moor roads; and what action he intends to take to make this form of farming profitable.

Mr. Hoy: Much as I sympathise with individual farmers who have suffered losses, I must remind the hon. Member that the Government do not guarantee farmers against hazards of bad weather or accident. The economic position of the industry is being examined as part of the current Annual Review.

Mr. Turton: The Government have introduced legislation in the Animals Bill that will throw heavy additional burdens on many such sheep farmers. Will that additional cost be taken into account in the Price Review? Will the hon. Gentleman make that clear? Otherwise, many sheep farmers will be driven out of sheep farming in the very near future.

Mr. Hoy: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he was in Government long enough to know, that any costs that have to be borne in agriculture are taken into account at the Annual Price Review.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many such holdings are too small for commercial viability? Perhaps the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred could be more efficaciously solved by more generous terms in the farm amalgamation scheme.

Mr. Hoy: I do not altogether agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Government have taken steps, including the promotion of legislation, to help amalgamations, and we hope that this will play a considerable part in helping to solve this problem.

Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a higher price is needed for the hill farmers to keep a proper land use balance between hill farming and forestry?

Mr. Hoy: I think that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree that over the past three or four Reviews there have been fairly decent increases in the end price. We must consider this matter in the same way to see whether we require to do any more about it.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the present level of farm incomes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford Holt) on 11th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 1243–4.]

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House feel that farm incomes will never be improved until the system has been changed? Is he also aware that we very much welcome his new approaches to overseas suppliers of beef to try to instigate a beef stabilisation scheme involving levies on imported beef that would put up the cost of beef to the home consumer? That is entirely in line with Conservative policy.

Mr. Hughes: The beef stabilisation arrangements which are being negotiated with overseas countries would not, in my view, increase the price of beef. This is the type of scheme that would not result in an increase of price. It is very different from the scheme which has been outlined by the party opposite in its recent policy statement.

Mr. Brooks: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he is also the Minister of Food? Is he satisfied with the present level of food prices, and will he make a statement?

Mr. Hughes: Food prices have been maintained at a very reasonable level under the present Government. They have risen much less than average earnings.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to ensure that farmers' incomes are not affected by increases in imports of food.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: For almost all major agricultural commodities we already have import measures with the object of securing reasonable stability of price on our markets. I shall as appropriate continue to improve these arrangements.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is not the Minister aware that farmers frequently find that events confirm their anxieties? In these circumstances, will he not admit that his policies have failed and that it is time we had something better?

Mr. Hughes: On the contrary, I think that our policies have succeeded. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that farmers' incomes are protected in two ways against lower prices consequent upon increased imports. We have the system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments, and we have a variety of import arrangements to ensure reasonable market prices. We have increased the measures to provide market stability—measures that the party opposite when in government did nothing to bring about.

Mr. Maclennan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that farmers regard the Conservative Party's new guarantee as being no guarantee at all and consider that as a result of it their incomes would not be secure? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"]

Mr. Hughes: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. The policies recently announced by hon. Members opposite as their official policy for the next election have aroused great nervousness and apprehension among farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"]—first, because it would bring great uncertainty into agriculture and, second, because it would substantially increase food prices.

Mr. Godber: If that is what the Minister thinks, is he aware that he is singularly out of touch with farming opinion? As one simple example, when he and I addressed meetings at the Rougemont Hotel in Exeter, I left by the front door and he left by the back door.

Mr. Hughes: I shall be glad to leave through the front door of any hotel with the right hon. Gentleman at any time. Certainly, the reception that I received at Exeter was similar to the reception received by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) at the time of the South Ayrshire by-election, when he was booed out of the hall after he had explained the policy of the party opposite.

Egg Industry

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he

is satisfied with recent trends in the egg and egg products industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: Trends in the egg industry are being considered in the course of the Annual Review discussions, and I cannot make a statement in advance of the publication of the Annual Review White Paper.

Mr. Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while many of us want a freer market in eggs, we also have very genuine fears for the future of egg production, and that it is not in the interest of the consumer for production to be in the hands of just four or five producers?

Mr. Hoy: We have taken steps to protect our egg market by a scheme of minimum import prices. As I said in reply to another Question, this must be considered in the terms of the Annual Review.

Mr. Rankin: Has my hon. Friend noticed another trend in the egg industry—that eggs are getting smaller? [An HON. MEMBER: "Take action against the chickens."] Does my hon. Friend realise that very many people like myself think that this is the result of factory farming, because chicken are not getting out to roam the wild as before?

Mr. Hoy: I know how my hon. Friend feels about the difference between battery eggs and free-range eggs. Sometimes people whose sight is not so good are inclined to misjudge the size of the egg.

Companies (Financial Incentives)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will undertake an inquiry with the Minister of Technology into the effects of financial incentives available to companies operating in development areas, such as regional employment premiums, investment grants, etc., on egg, pig and broiler fowl producers in those parts of England and Wales falling outside development areas.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry, including the incomes of egg and pig producers, are closely examined in the Annual Review. I do


not think that a further inquiry is necessary.

Mr. Jackson: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable sense of frustration, at least in some parts of the country, that producers in the development areas have economic advantages over and above those outside the development areas? Therefore, would he undertake the consultations with the Minister of Technology which I suggest in my Question?

Mr. Hughes: I should be perfectly prepared to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend if I thought that there was a purpose. The Government's policy is to encourage development in these areas, and it is one of the most successful achievements of the Government. I should not like to do anything to hold it back.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that there is bitter resentment throughout the country about his proposal in the Agriculture Bill to give capital grants in respect of factory farming operations which are not associated with the land in any way?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows the provisions of the Bill and the steps which we propose to take if it becomes law to limit the amount of money which will go to the very large intensives.

Perishable Foodstuffs (Coding Systems)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will appoint a working party to examine existing coding systems for perishable foodstuffs and to advise on the desirability or otherwise of compulsory date-coding.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. There may well be scope for useful discussions between food manufacturers and distributors, some of whom already operate voluntary systems of date coding. But as my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this should not be made a compulsory requirement it would not be appropriate for him to intervene.

Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is probably greater public anxiety about stale sausages and meat pies and other perishable food than about almost any other food problem? Since

he has turned down both compulsory date-stamping and compulsory coding, what does he propose to do to make sure that the practice of the best manufacturers is extended to the worst?

Mr. Hoy: I agree with my hon. Friend. She knows that the Food Standards Committee already advises us on matters of food labelling, and it has said that date marking is not practicable. The answer is efficient management and restocking. If this were done, I should have thought that the consumer would have no danger to face from any food which he or she might buy.

Miss Quennell: What does the Ministry propose to do to encourage the efficient restocking of shops so that consumers do not get stale sausages?

Mr. Hoy: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that we have had conversations, which are continuing, with the food manufacturers, and we try to impress on them the necessity for efficient restocking. Whether food is date stamped or not, if they do not take the elementary precaution of proper restocking there is very little that we can do by legislation. At the end of the day, the food consumer has the protection of other legislation.

Hedgerows

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the length of hedges removed by farmers in 1969; and whether he will have talks with the National Farmers Union about this matter.

Mr. Mackie: Removal of hedgerows rarely leads directly to soil erosion but—

Mr. Johnson: I have withdrawn Question No. 25. I have asked Question No. 26.

Mr. Mackie: The number of people in the House of Commons who are anxious to help is amazing. I will start again.
Removal of hedgerows rarely leads directly to soil erosion but in any case where such a result is likely our officers would take an opportunity open to them of advising against it. The decision, of course, rests with the farmer himself. The results of our investigation of the general


problem of erosion in East Anglia and elsewhere have been brought to the attention of farmers through the Ministry's publications and other suitable ways.

Mr. Johnson: As this is World Conservation Year, and as the Minister sits in the Cabinet specially to safeguard the environment, does he accept that fewer hedges mean fewer birds and upsetting the balance of ecology in the environment? What is he doing about that with his farmer colleagues?

Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend must know that all the hedges in our countryside have been man-made in the last 200 or 300 years. I do not know what kind of birds he is worried about; I assume that they are not game birds. I do not think that there is anything to be unduly worried about. If one flies over the country, one sees that there are a lot of hedges in England.

Sir D. Renton: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that hedges are the best habitat for a large range of British wild birds. When hedges have to be taken away in the interests of more efficient farming, should not the farmer be encouraged to plant spinneys as an alternative habitat for such birds?

Mr. Mackie: I said in my original answer that we give advice to farmers on this subject. If they want to make a shelter belt, replace and straighten up hedges or fence fields in general, they can get a grant.

Atlantic Salmon Fishing

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will undertake consultations with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with a view to making further representations to the Governments of Denmark, West Germany and Sweden that they observe the proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government at a recent meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in respect of salmon fishing.

Mr. Hoy: There is the closest consultation between my Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the form and timing of all representations on this matter.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he con-

firm that the Prime Minister has made representations to the Danish Prime Minister on this question? Does he recognise the need for making representations at the highest level to the Prime Ministers of West Germany and Sweden?

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already done so. We are in constant consultation with the Governments concerned.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the opinion expressed by the Director of the Atlantic Salmon Research Trust; namely, that in three years salmon will have reached the point of no return on their way to extinction unless something is done? Does he accept that view as a responsible view?

Mr. Hoy: I would hardly go as far as that. But, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and as the House ought to know, it was this country which gave a lead to both the Atlantic Commissions in dealing with this problem. I assure the hon. Gentleman that consultations are going on because if salmon stocks were to be damaged too severely there would be repercussions not only in Greenland but throughout the world.

Food Consumption

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that poorer families with children spend less than half the amount on food per head than better-off families of adults only; and what action he is taking to bring about more equal consumption.

Mr. Hoy: The Report of the National Food Survey for 1967 which gives this information makes it clear that food expenditure per head varies much more with size and composition of the family than with income. Children require less food than adults, and better-off families of adults only may wish to buy more expensive food. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that it is a major objective of the Government's social policies to ensure that the diet of poorer families is nutritionally adequate.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only is the consumption very much smaller at the lower level, but


the consumption of cheaper and more filling foods represents a larger proportion so that the diet is not merely smaller in quantity but less nutritious? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied on the latter point?

Mr. Hoy: No. We should like to see it raised. That is why I referred to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the last part of the answer.

Mr. Peter Mills: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the best way to help the poorer families is to get rid of this Socialist Government? Last year, the cost of food went up 6·4 per cent., whereas under Tory Governments the biggest increase was 2·4 per cent.

Mr. Hoy: As I said earlier, the cost of food went up least of all in these years. Certainly it went up much less than earnings. The hon. Gentleman should remember the question which one of his hon. Friends asked only a few moments ago advocating that we should increase the price of meat in this country.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman said that children need less food than adults. Has he any experience of teenage sons?

Mr. Hoy: I am glad to be able to answer in the affirmative. It is true that when children reach that stage their food consumption is very great indeed. But I accept the figures given in the National Food Survey in connection with much younger families.

Dried Milk Products

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in the supply of dried milk products, both from home and overseas, over recent years; and what steps he is taking to restrain these to a level which does not oversupply the home market.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has been little change in total United Kingdom supplies of dried milk in recent years. Imports have fallen, while home production has increased. The current market situation does not appear to give cause for concern, but the Government are watching the situation

closely, and co-operating actively in the efforts being made in the G.A.T.T. to stabilise the world market in skim milk powder.

Mr. Hill: Will the Minister say whether the Milk Marketing Board is satisfied with the effects of the present policy?

Mr. Hughes: The Milk Marketing Board is bound to be satisfied with the present trend, which I think is satisfactory. I hope the hon. Gentleman will read carefully what I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since 1965 the import of whole milk powder has declined from 23,400 tons to 16,200 tons. This is the trend that I have described as very encouraging.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the import of dairy products, including dried milk, is one of the main factors in lowering the level of returns to the dairy farmer? Will he, in the coming Price Review, ensure that the manufacturing price of liquid milk is raised so that we have a bigger share of our home market for our dairy products?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must know very well the position in relation to imports of milk products from his own time in the Ministry of Agriculture. There are quotas on butter which we apply severely, always concentrating carefully on the home stock. We have a voluntary restraint agreement for cheese. It is right for the House and the country to appreciate that cheese and butter account for over 90 per cent. of all milk product imports. There is this control, and, as I have just said, on balance the trend is satisfactory.

Following is the information:


'000 tons


Whole Milk Powder



Home Production
Imports
Total


1965
25·5
23·4
48·9


1966
27·5
23·8
51·3


1967
22·9
27·2
50·1


1968
24·1
18·3
42·4


1969
23·2
16·2
39·4


'000 tons


Skimmed Milk Powder



Home Production
Imports
Total


1965
67·2
48·4
115·6


1966
59·4
30·1
89·5


1967
72·5
38·2
110·7


1968
94·6
37·7
132·3


1969
88·2
27·7
115·9

'000 tons


Buttermilk and Whey Powder



Home Production
Imports
Total


1965
12·3
8·7
21·0


1966
10·4
4·5
14·9


1967
13·6
4·3
17·9


1968
12·4
5·3
17·7


1969
14·2
6·2
20·4

Bulls (Licensing)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has had from the Meat and Livestock Commission regarding bull licensing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mackie: The Meat and Livestock Commission has not yet given my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland its views on bull licensing.

Beef Import Controls

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision he has now reached on proposals for beef import controls.

Mr. Hoy: Bilateral discussions with the Governments of our main suppliers of beef on a scheme to stabilise the United Kingdom market for beef and to improve the phasing of beef supplies are still in progress. It is too soon to say what the outcome of these discussions will be.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is much feeling in the industry that the Government's proposals are not much use? In view of the projected increase in home supplies coming on to the market, would he not be better advised to strengthen this policy?

Mr. Hoy: No, I do not think people do regard the proposals as of not much use. In fact, they have already been welcomed this afternoon from the Opposition benches. We have had bilateral discussions with a considerable number of Governments. Discussions with two or three countries have yet to be held, and after that perhaps we can have a multilateral meeting to deal with this problem.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the House to the contradiction between the opinions of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on

this subject? Is he able to say with which countries talks are still outstanding?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, I did draw attention to the divergence of view that had been expressed on the benches opposite. Further bilateral meetings are likely to be held with the Irish Republic, Argentina and Uruguay, and conversations with them have already been held.

Mr. Godber: Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that divergence of view on this side of the House is a phenomenon, but on the Government benches it is a frequent occurrence? In relation to this matter, will he give a fuller explanation of what the Government propose? All we have heard so far is that he is having certain discussions with the trade.

Mr. Hoy: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply to the first part of his supplementary question. It was a very good defence, and I will leave it at that.

An Hon. Member: Speak up.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that I was speaking up. All I am saying is that these discussions have been held with a considerable number of countries, and a few more have still to be held. It would be inadvisable to make proposals public until such time as conversations have been completed and perhaps until the multilateral meeting has taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Catering for Members

Mr. Dance: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that the Complaints Book is always available to hon. Members when using the catering facilities in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will have books placed in the dining rooms and cafeterias of the House for hon. Members to record their appreciation, suggestions and complaints.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): A complaints book is available in the Strangers' Dining Room, and


arrangements are being made for the provision of further books in the Members' Dining Room, Members' Cafeteria and Tea Room.

Mr. Dance: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey our best wishes to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee and our hope for his speedy recovery? At the same time, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints book has not been available recently for Members to use but has been locked up in the catering manager's office?

Mr. Peart: I thought that my answer should receive satisfaction from the hon. Member. I would like to associate the whole House with what he has said about my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor), who is Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. We wish him a speedy recovery.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Echoing that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that since the transfer of some responsibilities from the Lord Great Chamberlain there has been a tendency to put on the Order Paper comparatively minor Questions regarding food and drink and Members' convenience? If these books are available—and we are glad to hear that they will be—will not this save Parliamentary time?

Mr. Peart: I would hope so.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the absence of this complaints book has been a source of great irritation to many hon. Members recently? Since we are dealing with agriculture Questions, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the quality of beer sold in this building is very indifferent and usually warm, and that this strikes right at the heart of the body politic of this country?

Mr. Peart: I wish that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee were here to answer, but as a customer in the House I would say that my hon. Friend is wrong.

Fire Alarm and Drill

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the official fire alarm signal within the House of

Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Peart: A system of fire patrols and fire alarm telephones connects with a central fire telephone switchboard which has direct line communication with the London Fire Brigade. There is no single system of raising the alarm in case of fire within the precincts of the House of Commons. Any general alarm system would run the risk of halting the business of the House unnecessarily.

Mr. Hooley: Far be it from me to halt the business of the House unnecessarily. Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in a building as complex and as out of date as this, there should be a properly recognisable fire-alarm system for the safety of Members and servants of the House, quite apart from the general public?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the problem. Indeed, the authorities of the House and the Ministry of Public Building and Works have had frequent discussions with Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate, and plans for a modern fire alarm system are being drawn up. It is expected that installation will begin this year.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord President of the Council how many times in 1969 there was a formal fire drill for all the permanent staff employed in the House of Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Peart: Not all permanent staff of the House take part in formal fire drill. But all custodian staff, including four trained firemen, undertake fire drill each week. In addition, the custodian staff took part in exercises with the London Fire Brigade on four occasions during 1969.

Mr. Hooley: While welcoming that information as far as it goes, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that fires cause damage to the extent of £120 million a year throughout the country, that the number of major fires is a record and that this hazard appears to be on the increase? Will not my right hon. Friend look again to see whether the precautions in this place are adequate?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate, for example, that last


year 38 cases of fire were reported, which were all dealt with expeditiously and without general disruption.

Mr. Crouch: May I draw the attention of the Lord President of the Council to the fact that I assisted last week in putting out a fire by the use of a soda siphon in the Smoking Room?

Mr. Snow: The hon. Member should have used beer.

Mr. Crouch: Beer was not readily available. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to draw to the attention of hon. Members the danger of throwing cigarette ends into wastepaper baskets?

Mr. Peart: It is right that the hon. Member should draw attention to that sort of practice.

Voting Methods

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the present methods of voting in the House.

Mr. Peart: The Committee's terms of reference already allow it to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that leading articles appear every day advising trade unionists to have secret ballots? As the House of Commons cannot have either a secret ballot or an unpressurised vote, will he ask the Committee to consider ways and means of having a really free vote, if need be a secret vote? He would then find that two-thirds of the hon. Members of the House do not want to go into the Common Market.

Mr. Peart: That is another matter. I thought my hon. Friend was referring to the Select Committee's report on this.

Mr. Tapsell: Is it true to say that the right hon. Gentleman's real problem is not the method by which his hon. Friends vote, but their frequent refusal to do so?

Mr. Peart: That applies to both sides of the House.

Public Expenditure (Specialist Committees)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council when he

intends to publish proposals for the establishment of specialist committees to deal with the control of public expenditure, as recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Peart: I have nothing yet to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 11th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 341.]

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give a progress report on this? Will he give an undertaking that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House on the Government's proposals, and that they will get off the ground and be implemented before the next General Election?

Mr. Peart: I agree that it is an important matter, but it is essential that the Government be given time to consider the proposals fully. As soon as we are ready with firm proposals we shall put them before the House, and I will consider sympathetically the question of a debate.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that for example, the question of how many clerks are needed to serve specialist committees is decided by the House of Commons and not by an outside authority, even the Treasury?

Mr. Peart: Of course, finally, the House has control. There has been a big improvement in the number of clerks, and facilities are being provided for the new Select Committees which we have already set up.

Privy Councillors (Participation in Debates)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now seek to implement the proposals contained in the 1958–59 Report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to the participation of Privy Councillors in debates.

Mr. Peart: The view taken by the Government at that time was that this question of Privy Councillors' rights in debate is best left to the discretion of the Chair; I share this view.

Mr. Hamilton: That is a nice way of passing the buck! Is my right hon.


Friend aware that if there were a free vote in the House on this matter there would be an overwhelming majority against the kind of experience that we had on the second day of the Common Market debate when 40 minutes of a whole day's debate were allocated to back benchers and all the rest to Privy Councillors? Who the devil do they think they are?

Mr. Peart: I do not intend to pass the buck; I am merely expressing a view, and I think my view is right.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did not the Lord President, unwittingly perhaps, give a contradictory reply in answer to the original Question? Did not he say that Privy Councillors have rights and then go on to say that the Chair has discretion? Will he emphasise that Privy Councillors have no rights at all and that this is purely in the discretion of the Chair?

Mr. Peart: I think my hon. Friend is being too pedantic.

Mr. Lewis: I am not being pedantic.

Mr. Peart: I take the view that selection for debate is a matter in the discretion of the Chair.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would not this problem be overcome if all hon. Members were made Privy Councillors?

UNIVERSITIES (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Lord President of the Council by what authority the Privy Council regulates the administration of universities.

Mr. Peart: The Privy Council does not regulate the administration of universities. Its authority to approve amendments to university charters and statutes generally derives from the charters themselves, but in some cases it is statutory.

Mr. Mallalieu: Could my right hon. Friend use these powers, such as they are, to initiate reforms in the University of Warwick, especially in the matter of keeping political files on students?

Mr. Peart: I am responsible for the membership of university bodies, and Warwick University is included. I am glad that my former university vice-

chancellor condemned the practice of keeping student files. I have here a cutting from The Times, but I will not read it out. I believe that it is a practice which we should condemn.

Sir G. Nabarro: While I do not wish to enter into any controversy concerning university administration, will not the right hon. Gentleman respond to his hon. Friend by pointing out that the University of Warwick has behaved utterly constitutionally in causing its Chancellor, Lord Radcliffe, to set up a full-scale inquiry into the recent disturbances and to publish his report? Surely that is adequate to meet all the circumstances of this disastrous case?

Mr. Peart: I do not dissent on the question of an inquiry, but I reaffirm what was said by a very distinguished vice-chancellor. The political opinions and affiliations of students and staff are no business of a university.

FORMER DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (EXPATRIATE OFFICERS' PENSIONS)

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Her Majesty's Government have recently given careful consideration to representations made by several Governments of developing countries which were formerly British dependent territories about the financial burden on their economies of their responsibility for paying pensions and compensation to expatriate officers who were in Government service in those territories before independence.
Having regard to these representations and to the views expressed by many sections of informed opinion in this country, including Members of this House, the Government have decided that as part of their policy of aid to development they are willing, at the request of any Government concerned, to consider assuming responsibility for the cost of pensions to expatriate officers in respect of pre-independence Government service.
The assumption of such a responsibility would be taken into account in determining the total amount of aid a country


might receive for all purposes having regard to needs and the funds available in the aid programme.
In general, the Government would be willing to assume responsibility from 1st April, 1971. We could not contemplate reimbursement of expenditure incurred or due to be incurred up to that date. In broad terms, the officers whose pensions would be included in any arrangement would be those who are covered by a public officers' agreement, or would, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, have been covered if there had been an agreement, and who are not citizens of the country concerned. Outstanding commutation and compensation loans would also be covered and annual payments of principal or interest due after 1st April, 1971, would be waived.
The Government are also willing to consider entering into similar agreements with the Governments of dependent territories approaching independence. In the case of other dependent territories, account would be taken of their expenditure on expatriate pensions in assessing their needs for development expenditure, which we recognise as constituting a special and increasing claim on the aid programme.
I propose to lay before the House in due course a Bill which would enable me to assume responsibility, if necessary, for the payment of individual pensioners. Until there was such enabling legislation we could proceed only by way of annual reimbursements of the total amounts involved to the Governments concerned.
The Government's decision removes the impediment to a renewed aid programme in Tanzania and we shall be ready at any time to exchange views with the Tanzania Government on this subject.

Mr. Braine: I wish to congratulate the Minister on her statement. While, in principle, we welcome this new approach, we should like an opportunity to consider its implications. In the meantime, I should like to ask two questions.
First, assuming that all the Governments concerned ask Her Majesty's Government to assume responsibility for expatriate pensions, what is likely to be the total cost and what amendment, if any, will have to be made to the figures for future aid programmes which the

right hon. Lady announced to the House last November?
Secondly, can the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that no British pensioner will be worse off as a result of Her Majesty's Government assuming this new responsibility?

Mrs. Hart: I can certainly give an assurance on the second point.
It is difficult to give a precise answer on the first point. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the total cost each year to overseas Governments is about £12 million, but this does not necessarily correspond to the eventual cost to Britain because we cannot predict in advance of the discussions with the countries concerned, nor can we fully take into account in advance of such discussions, what consideration we should want to give to what we would now regard as being the aid requirements of the countries involved.

Mr. Oram: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the whole House on having resolved a very vexing problem, which has often led to difficulties between developing countries and ourselves, not least in Tanzania? May we hope that relationships with that country will shortly be restored to normal?

Mrs. Hart: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose interest in this matter goes very deep. I hope that we can quickly move to resumption of a normal aid relationship with Tanzania.

Mr. Sharples: I very much welcome the statement made by the Minister. Could she say a little more about the position of pensioners from South Aden, including my constituent Mr. Salole, about whom we have had considerable correspondence? What will be the situation of those pensioners whose pensions were cut off by the South Yemen Government in 1968? Will they be entitled to back payments of pension?

Mrs. Hart: There are still one or two matters to be resolved, but I hope to be able to state quite shortly, probably next week, the situation as it affects South Yemen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that answer satisfactory. This particular arrangement would not apply to South Yemen.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware how very pleased we all are that these people who retain their jobs and continue in their duties at the request not only of Her Majesty's Government, but of the successor Governments, should be regarded and that their pensions should be assured? It is important that this should be done. I congratulate the Minister.

Mrs. Hart: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It is right that we should recognise the valuable service given in the pre-independence days by many of those who since have served as expatriate civil servants.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that in principle this change will be greatly welcomed by the opinion outside the House, and particularly by the World Development Action Group, which has made representations about the matter? Is she further aware that the details will depend very much on what proportion of the £12 million expenditure is assumed by Her Majesty's Government? What, in the Government's view, is the proportion to be borne by Her Majesty's Government to constitute an addition to expenditure on aid that is already being incurred?

Mrs. Hart: That is a reasonable question, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that the matter will have to be looked at case by case. In making allocations for aid from the aid programme, we take into account the total position in a developing country. To the extent that the income of a developing country is increased by the new arrangements when they come into force, if they are negotiated between us this makes a relevant difference. Although we would not wish to make precise adjustments, we would expect to make some adjustments to the aid programme.

Mr. John Lee: As one who enjoys a Colonial Service pension, may I add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to my right hon. Friend. Could my right hon. Friend explain the situation with regard to those pensionable officers who have retired and whose service has straddled the period of independence? I think it is true that the majority of those enjoying pensions are people who stayed on after independence. Does that mean that in certain

cases part of their pension will be paid by Her Majesty's Government and part by the former colonial territory?

Mrs. Hart: That, in effect, would be the case in relation to somebody as described by my hon. Friend. The arrangements I have announced this afternoon relate to the pre-independence section of their service and not to the post-independence section, which would remain the responsibility of the Government concerned.

Mr. Maudling: Is not one of the great concerns of these people the effects on their pensions of a rising cost of living? Does this new arrangement mean that they will in future come under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Acts?

Mrs. Hart: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have always taken great care traditionally to safeguard these pensioners against increases in the cost of living. We have already made appropriate adjustments in their pensions. We shall be anxious to give whatever protection we can in this new situation.

Mr. Judd: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on this move towards a rationalisation of the whole issue, is she aware that, if the Treasury makes no additional allowance for the extra cost on the aid programme as a result of it, there will be the most vigorous criticism from all concerned with the aid and development programme? Is she further aware that it is preposterous that payments of this kind should be regarded as part of that programme?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend understand that those of us who welcome the possibility of renewed relationships with Tanzania would like to see an aid programme with Tanzania given the highest priority by Her Majesty's Government?

Mrs. Hart: I shall take account of my hon. Friend's views on his second point. I am anxious to make full recognition of the present progress that Tanzania is making in development. We should welcome that and give what assistance we can.
On the first point, I must in principle disagree with my hon. Friend. The service that many of these pensioners gave during the pre-independence period


is to be regarded as service to development. I do not apologise for my attitude. I disagree with my hon. Friend on principle.

Mr. Allason: While it is clear that it is most welcome that the expatriate officers should be dealt with, is there not an obligation also to those locally enlisted Government servants of the late Aden and Zanzibar Governments who receive no pensions?

Mrs. Hart: This is a point which arose earlier, and on which I asked the House to be patient for a few more days.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a mass of business ahead of us.

BILL PRESENTED

MISUSE OF DRUGS

Mr. Secretary Callaghan, supported by Mr. Secretary Crossman, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Mr. Dick Taverne, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Elystan Morgan, presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs and related matters, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RENT AND RATES) (SCOTLAND)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to oblige local authorities in Scotland to give separate figures for rents and rates in the forms requesting payment sent to individual local authority tenants.
My proposed Bill is quite straightforward and modest. It might be described as non-political in character and educational in intent. It is designed to ensure that all tenants of local authority houses in Scotland should be clearly informed of the amounts due from them in rent and in rates, and that there should rest on a local authority there a clear obligation so to inform their tenants.
Local authority tenants are apt to present forms to their collectors without making any distinction between rent and rates. They speak of and often think of the total payment as "rent". They are apt to regard the division between rent and rates as a somewhat academic exercise and are simply interested in the total amounts which they have to pay each week or month.
Local authorities do not help, since they do not make plain the difference between the two. Few Scottish local authorities issue separate rates notices to their council tenants, even for information only. The position is further complicated by the fact that a rent book usually runs from May of one year to May of the next and, when a new book is issued, the rates for the following year have not been agreed and can only be provisional. Because of that, authorities have been apt to omit them, but to send out later in the year a rates notice or a circular letter offering to furnish details of the annual rates payable, with a breakdown of the total sum payable by way of rates.
Authorities find that very few tenants ask for this information. In general, being human, they concentrate on the total amounts that they have to pay each month. They know in a general way that it includes the rates, but the significance of the rateable burden is frequently not appreciated.
At present, there is no statutory form of rent collection in Scotland, and no uniformly acceptable system of recording payments. The great majority of Scottish local authorities used what is known as the Gilbert system. That is a form produced by Alfred Gilbert and Sons. A carbonised collection sheet is used by the collector, and the entry on it matches the entry on the tenant's corresponding card.
The same or a similar practice is followed by the Scottish Special Housing Association. Even where the rateable value is shown somewhere on the card, very often in rather small print, it is hardly ever shown in the monthly or weekly entry. Nor do all authorities spell out clearly the conditions of the tenancy.
Some authorities go out of their way to be helpful. Thus, Wigtownshire informs its tenants of the system of rebates open to them. Lanarkshire attaches to the front of the card the breakdown of the charge, both annually and fortnightly, on a label run off on a computer and showing the charges for individual houses. This has been well received by tenants, as they then know what they are paying under individual headings.
There is a similar development in Edinburgh, where the introduction of computer-recording of rent collection is altering the whole system. Edinburgh is determined to do away with rent collectors and to issue each of its tenants with a computer print-out specifying the sum owed. It will have on it the standard rent, the gross annual value, rebates, supplementary charges, and the amount due.
In Glasgow, where no collectors are employed, the card lists rent, rates and rent rebate. Glasgow normally accepts payments on a monthly basis, except in the case of defaulting tenants, when it demands weekly payments. In all other cases in Glasgow, payment is made by

banker's order, by post, by Giro, or by calling at collection offices throughout the city. In view of the security risks involved, we ought to be encouraging people to pay by means other than the use of collectors.
As I said at the outset, my Bill is modest, and, I hope, constructive. Already, its presentation has had a salutary effect. Thus the Town Clerk of the Burgh of Stornoway replied to an inquiry which I made of him, as I did of many other authorities in Scotland, by saying:
You will see that the amount due in rent and rates is not shown separately, but, in this connection, the Burgh Chamberlain is in agreement with you, and he will shortly be putting a proposal to the Council for the amounts due in rent and rates to be shown on the rent book.
I believe that what Stornoway is thinking of doing tomorrow, the rest of Scotland will be doing the day after. This is to assume that the Bill will itself not become law, and perhaps that is unthinkable.
I am proposing a Bill which will oblige Scottish local authorities to show rent and rates separately. I hope that a single uniform system might obtain throughout the country, not only to allow tenants to know what they must pay and what it constitutes, but also to encourage them to pay without the use of collectors.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Esmond Wright, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. George Younger, and Mr. Norman Wylie.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RENT AND RATES) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to oblige local authorities in Scotland to give separate figures for rents and rates in the forms requesting payment sent to individual local authority tenants, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th May and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted as is my wont, the Amendments which I have selected for Consideration stage. There is one correction I wish to make. Amendment No. 5, on page 1931, is not selected. Amendment No. 27, on page 1937, is selected, and with it we shall take Amendment No. 28.

New Clause 1

APPLICATION OF PILOTAGE ACT, 1913

(1) A pilotage Authority may by bye-laws made under the Pilotage Act, 1913, make such rules restricting or limiting the granting of a Pilotage Certificate, or the extension of a Pilotage Certificate, to more than one ship as appears to the Pilotage Authority to be necessary or desirable for the safety of a ship navigating within its pilotage district or any part thereof.
(2) Section 23 of the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall not apply in respect of any ship which is not registered at a port of registry within the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purpose of sections 11, 23 and 24 of the Pilotage Act, 1913, the expression 'mate' shall remain with respect to a ship the navigating officer next to the Master in authority of that ship.—[Mr. Ridsdale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Bill already contains some minor Amendments to the Pilotage Act and I am grateful for this opportunity of putting forward this Clause, particularly because of the concern felt by pilots, as a result of the issuing of pilotage certificates to British officers on foreign and cross-Channel ferries who are employed solely to enable a certain company to get round normal pilotage requirements—a sort of puppet pilots' charter. I refer to the case of the Townsend-Thorensen ship "Viking" in Dover and the Thorensen "Viking" operating between Southamption, Cherbourg and Le Havre. This is a Norwegian ship with some form of British control.
Recently, a report was made by Mr. Barry Sheen, Q.C., on cases referred to him in December involving a refusal by the pilotage authority to grant pilotage certificates to British officers for these British and Norwegian ships. This report discloses that in Mr. Sheen's view, Section 23 of the Pilotage Act allows certificates to be issued to any bona fide mate of a ship, subject, of course, to certain other requirements, and not to the master and chief officer only. Previously, the words "master or mate" had been taken to apply to the master and chief officer only. The Clause would restore the position as it was before this opinion by Mr. Barry Sheen was given. It was given in January and I understand that the Board of Trade has taken counsel's opinion and informed Trinity House that it is prepared to make an order requiring Trinity House to issue pilots' certificates in these circumstances.
This brings me to my first argument in favour of the Clause. There is a danger to navigation and safety is imperilled. The pilots in Harwich have told me that they consider that this would pose a great hazard to other shipping using the congested pilotage waters as the vessels concerned would be high speed passenger-carrying ships under the command of a master whose pilot was one of his junior officers. Bearing in mind the special relationship between master and pilot, this would further aggravate a very dangerous situation.
Many pilots regard this as a direct flouting of the law. In many cases what will happen will be that the British officer will be taken on board and used as a spare part or a "puppet pilot", the pilotage in all cases being done by the foreign captain or some other officer. What check can there be that such action does not take place?
This is clearly the view not only of the British Maritime Pilots' Association, but also the European Maritime Pilots' Association. There have been a number of cases recently. In 1968, in Belfast, a German ship tried to get round the 1913 Pilotage Act by taking on a British pilot as part of the crew. In the Humber last year, a Dutch ship, under British management, tried to flout the Act. On both occasions such action was stopped by the intervention of the European Maritime Pilots' Association. The members of this association are Sweden, Germany,


Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain. Recently, in the Humber, a Dutch-registered vessel "Norwing", now under British management, tried to flout the Act, but the Dutch equivalent of the Board of Trade has made clear that if such exemptions were asked for they would not be granted.
Norwegian pilots are not a party to such an agreement. Since the United Kingdom and the consensus of the European view is that such action as Mr. Barry Sheen has ruled upon would be a direct flouting of the Act, surely the Board of Trade should think very seriously about allowing such unilateral action? Moreover, such a ruling and the consequent action upon the ruling would almost certainly open the door to a substantial number of shipowners who will wish to follow the Norwegian example. Obviously, this action will lead to an increase in the costs of shipowners.
It may be that the new Clause is not the right way of dealing with this breach of the Act. I can understand that the Chamber of Shipping might ask for more time to consider the consequences of Mr. Barry Sheen's ruling. The Government may not be in a position to accept this Clause. If this is so, I hope that they will say that some action will be taken soon, if not through this Clause then possibly by a small amendment to the Pilotage Act to cover this point. That is all that would be required.
I hope that it will not be put off until proposals are made for the reorganisation of pilotage, indicated in the White Paper, Reorganisation of the Ports. As a member of the Committee on the Ports Bill, I know that such action is a long way off. I hope that the Government will assure the House that some action will be taken soon. This method of working is regarded by British and Continental pilots as a hazard to shipping. If something does go wrong in the meantime, and an accident takes place as a consequence of Mr. Sheen's ruling, I feel bound to point out that the onus must be on the Government.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): While I understand the reasons which prompted the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) to move this Clause, I cannot recommend its acceptance by the House. The hon. Gentleman said in his closing remarks

that he wished to emphasise the importance of not tolerating undue delay over the regularising of the position. I take his point and will consider it carefully.
The first reason why the Clause has no place in the Bill is that the subject matter is really extraneous to the topics dealt with in the Bill. We are dealing essentially with matters relating to masters and crews of ships, and their employers, and not with pilots and pilotage matters. The latter are the concern of the Pilotage Act, 1913. This is not the place to deal with amendments to that Act. Such minor amendments as we have made to that Act, in Schedule 2 of the Bill, are solely consequential amendments to the provisions of the Bill.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, the matters to which this new Clause relates are now the subject of discussion with the pilot's unions, with the various pilotage authorities throughout the country, with the Chamber of Shipping and others. These are difficult matters, on which there are varying points of view and we would certainly not wish to anticipate or prejudge the result of these discussions.
The White Paper, Reorganisation of the Ports, recently recommended separate legislation for pilotage, and an overhaul of the pilotage legislation is needed. Should it be found, when the discussions to which I have referred have been completed, that legislation to deal with the matters referred to in the Clause is necessary, pilotage legislation will clearly be the place for it. But this Bill is neither the right time nor the right place.
However, as I have said, I take very much into mind what the hon. Member has said about the need to avoid undue delay, and to bring the matter to the proof as soon as possible.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Let me say at once how much I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) has put forward his case, and has recognised what is clearly a matter of importance not only to his constituents but to all pilots who work out of British ports. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to have raised the matter.


I do not necessarily agree with all the Minister's reasons for saying that legislation would not be appropriate here and now, but one overriding and perfectly fair point that he made was that, although Mr. Barry Sheen reported as long ago as last January, I am told that the industry, represented by the Chamber of Shipping, had sight of that report and was consulted about it only a week ago.
A matter as important as that embodied in the Clause could hardly be dealt with by the industry during the course of a few days. Regretfully, therefore, I must come to the conclusion that that fact rules out any question of the House now seeking to incorporate in the Bill what might well be a valuable improvement—although I do not know; I have not had time to study it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend has taken note of what the Minister of State has said, and may feel perhaps that it is not right to press the Clause to a Division.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of what the Minister has said, and of the importance of the Chamber of Shipping having time to consider the implications of the report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS TO APPOINT PERSONS TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS OF A PROPER OFFICER

The Board of Trade may make regulations providing for the appointment of persons, of whose fitness for the purpose it is satisfied, who may perform the functions of a proper officer for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1970 in ports in countries outside the United Kingdom, and such regulations may provide for such fees or other remuneration to be payable to such persons as the Board may with the consent of the Treasury determine.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this Clause, we will take Amendment No. 50, in page 44, line 24, at end insert:
'and any person appointed under regulations made under Clause (Power to make regu-

lations to appoint persons to perform functions of a proper officer)'.
The two are linked.

Mr. Jenkin: The purpose of the Clause and of the Amendment is to enable us once again to attempt to hear from the Government how they propose to reconcile those provisions of the Bill which conflict with the recommendations of the Duncan Committee in its Report of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation 1968–69, published as Cmnd. 4107. As the Minister of State and the House will be aware, this matter has been raised on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill.
The point is very short, but very important. The Duncan Report recommends a drastic reduction in the number of consular posts overseas which will be available to perform traditional consular functions, including functions under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Bill, drawn in very close accord with the recommendations of the Pearson Committee, which reported two years before the Duncan Committee, appears to have taken no account whatever of the possibility, that consular posts overseas may be reduced. Indeed, it contains a substantial number of duties imposed on those whom it describes as "proper officers", who, for the most part, are consular representatives in overseas ports.
When I raised this subject on Second Reading the Minister of State was not in a position to deal with it, and I make no complaint of that. When my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. R. Ridsdale) raised it in Committee, the Minister gave an answer which was, perhaps, a bit superficial. He said:
If a proper officer was not available, the regulations, I imagine, would require a report to the nearest consul or the consul at the next port of call, or to the Registrar-General. These arrangements will require consideration.
On the larger point of the diminution of consular facilities in various parts of the world, I am conscious of this for certain reasons…
and the right hon. Gentleman referred to his previous position in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
But I do not think that this will be seriously deleterious to the operation of this part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th December, 1969; c. 71.]
I was, therefore, a bit surprised when I myself addressed the Committee, as


reported in the following column. I then adverted to what I said were over a dozen functions imposed on proper officers, and HANSARD reports that the Minister of State intervened to say, "Seventy-six ". I must say that I have not counted all those functions imposed by the Bill and by the Merchant Shipping Acts, but if it be the fact that 76 functions are specifically imposed by legislation on consular officers it seems to me to represent a very important matter, indeed, if the number of these officers is to be drastically reduced.
It is not as if the functions are unimportant. The functions which the Acts and the Bill impose on consular officers are quite substantial. For instance, if a master wants to discharge a seaman overseas the discharge must be done with the consent of the proper officer. If there is a dispute in a foreign port about wages, it is the proper officer who is called in to settle the dispute. If there are complaints about food or accommodation on board ship—which, goodness knows, can give rise to very serious difficulties—it is the proper officer who has to go on board to see to what extent the complaints are justified. If there is a death on board ship, it is the proper officer who, in the first instance, makes an inquiry into that death. If a seaman has been left behind, it is the proper officer who has to see to his relief and repatriation. And so it goes on.
No one could seriously contend that these are not to be regarded as quite important duties to be imposed by the Bill on those officials in ports overseas. The discharge of those duties all depends on the existence of a substantial number of consular posts along the lines which have existed hitherto in, foreign ports. Yet the Duncan Report recommends a substantial reduction in the number. It states:
We recommend that in drafting new shipping legislation the Board of Trade should consider not simply the modernisation of present practice but a more fundamental reform whereby the shipping services at present expected of consular Posts might be drastically curtailed, if not eliminated altogether, on the lines indicated above.
Yet, so far as I am aware, since the publication of the report not one change has been introduced into the Bill to take account of that recommendation, nor have the Government yet announced

their intentions with regard to the recommendations of the Duncan Committee.
Ideally, it would have been better had we been able to deal with the matter in the Bill. It obviously will not be possible if consular posts are to be reduced, for the Government to do that. Clearly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not yet made up its mind what response it will offer to the recommendations of the Duncan Committee. Therefore, I put forward my Amendment recognising that it is only the second-best, but one which, nevertheless, will save the position. If we find that a substantial number of consular posts are to disappear, the Board of Trade must surely have power to appoint people in their place to carry out the statutory functions. That is what the Clause and the Amendment seek to do.
The Clause would give the Board of Trade power to make regulations under which it might appoint fit and proper persons to perform the functions of a proper officer in foreign ports, and would empower the Board of Trade to pay their remuneration or fees out of moneys provided by Parliament with the consent of the Treasury. This seems to me to be an absolute minimum power which the Government must have if the purposes of the Measure are not to be frustrated.
It simply is no answer to say that they can always go on to the next port where a proper officer is to be found, or they can telegraph to the home port and deal with the matter in that way. Of course, if one is dealing with European ports that may be possible, but one has to think of ships going on long voyages, for instance, to the Far East, and often calling at major ports such as Yokohama, in Japan, or at Manilla, where the services of a proper officer may not be available.
The Clause and the Amendment may not be the way of achieving this purpose, but that something has to be done is clear. We have raised this matter on three or four occasions and not had a satisfactory answer. Now an opportunity is presented for the Minister of State to tell the House what the Government will do.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I refer, first, to the number of functions to be performed by proper officers. The hon.


Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) was, of course, quite right: the number is nearer to a dozen than to six dozen. The interjection recorded in HANSARD was made in relation to a quite extraneous point. I entirely agree about the importance of functions performed by proper officers and of having a proper coverage of ports.
I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks that I have been a little laggard in coming forward with a statement on the Duncan Report. In view of the fact that this substantial and far-reaching report is still under consideration and decisions have not yet been finalised I decided that I should wait for the latest appropriate opportunity and then make as full a statement as possible. I do not know whether what I am able to say today will satisfy the hon. Member.
I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I assure the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aware of the need to take account of the requirements of any merchant shipping legislation in force, or contemplated, and regulations made, or likely to be made, under such legislation in its study of the Duncan proposals in the consular field. The Office is fully aware of the need that consular facilities should continue to be available to enable a proper implementation of the provisions in the Bill and regulations to be made there under. I suggest that the House should assume that these facilities will be available in approaching the proposals of the Bill.
Clearly, at a somewhat later stage, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends would be right to probe us as to the way in which consideration is developing. After consultation with my right hon. Friend, I am satisfied that the intention is as I have stated it to be. Indeed, I have stated it in terms which were agreed. I hope that that will go some way to allay the apprehensions which the hon. Member has enunciated.
As regards the possibility of serious gaps in the provision of proper officers to discharge these functions in certain ports, I am advised that there is no need for any special provision for the appointment of persons by the Board of Trade outside the United Kingdom. Powers

already exist in Clause 82 of the Bill, but it would normally be left to the Foreign Office to appoint persons serving abroad in those capacities. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member will feel able not to press the new Clause.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will recognise that he has gone a good deal further this afternoon than he was able to go on previous occasions. The statement which he incorporated in his speech with the authority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be valuable guidance to shipping companies to know the sort of treatment they can expect to be available for dealing with these matters in foreign ports. It recognises that the Foreign Office is moving fairly sharply towards a rejection of the recommendation of the Duncan Report, which would mean a drastic curtailment in the number of consular officers. I hope that that will not emerge.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 510 OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894

Section 510 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 shall be amended by adding after subsection (2) a subsection as follows:—

'(3) The expression "historic wreck" includes any ship that was or appears likely to have been abandoned, wrecked or stranded one hundred years before the day upon which it is found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal water and any cargo, equipment, machinery or other articles of whatsoever class or kind belonging to or separated from or which came from any such ship and includes any part of the hull of the ship.'—[Mr. Nott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with this Clause we can discuss New Clause 4—Wrecks found in the United Kingdom:
The following section shall be substituted for section 518 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894:

'(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, where any person finds or takes


possession of any wreck within the limits of the United Kingdom he shall—

(a) if he is the owner thereof, give notice to the receiver of the district stating that he has found or taken possession of the same, and describing the marks by which the same may be recognised;
(b) if he is not the owner thereof, as soon as possible deliver the same to the receiver of the district.

(2) Where any person finds any historic wreck within the limits of the United Kingdom he shall—

(a) save as provided in subsection (3) of this section, not remove, damage, destroy, or interfere in any way whatsoever with the historic wreck or any part thereof; and
(b) within forty-eight hours give notice in writing to the receiver of the district stating—

(i) that he has found the historic wreck and the date of the finding,
(ii) a concise description of the historic wreck, and
(iii) the precise location where the historic wreck may be found.

(3) (a) Where any person wishes to excavate or remove an historic wreck or any part thereof he shall make written application to the Board of Trade for authority so to do;

(b) the President of the Board of Trade may in his absolute discretion authorise such a person to excavate the historic wreck on such conditions as he shall think fit provided that—

(i) he is satisfied that such a person is a fit and proper person so to do; and
(ii) such a person undertakes in writing to comply with any such conditions;

(c) the President of the Board of Trade may in his absolute discretion revoke any authority granted under (b) of subsection (3) of this section on such grounds and for such reasons as he shall think fit.

(4) If any person fails, without reasonable cause, to comply with this section, he shall, for each offence, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and shall in addition, if he is not the owner, forfeit any claim to salvage, and shall be liable to pay to the owner of the wreck if it is claimed, or, if it is unclaimed to the person entitled to the same, double the value thereof, to be recovered in the same way as a fine of a like amount under this Act.

New Clause 5—Amendment of section 521 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894:
Section 521 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 shall be amended by adding after subsection (2) the following proviso:—
Provided always that the owner of historic wreck shall not be entitled to have

the same delivered up to him under the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the President of the Board of Trade certifies that it is not of national or historical interest or of scientific, archaeological, educational or other special interest and in that event, the receiver shall not deliver such historic wreck up to the owner until after the expiry of two years from the time at which the historic wreck came into the possession of the receiver".

New Clause 6—Amendment of section 522 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894:
Section 522 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 shall be amended by adding after subsection (c) of this section the following proviso:—
Provided always that this section shall not apply to historic wreck".

New Clause 7—Amendment of section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894:
The following section shall be substituted for section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and shall be amended by adding at the end the following subsection:—
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section Her Majesty and Her Royal successors are entitled to all historic wreck found in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, whether claimed or unclaimed, which is certified by the President of the Board of Trade, in his absolute discretion, to be of national or historical interest or of scientific, archaeological, educational or other special interest ".
and new Clause 8—Amendment of section 525 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894:
Section 525 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 shall be amended by adding after subsection (2) of this section the following subsections:—
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to historic wreck which is certified by the President of the Board of Trade under section 523 of this part of this Act to be of national or historical interest or of scientific, archaeological, educational or other special interest.
(4) If the wreck is historic wreck or of national or historical interest or of scientific, archaeological, education or other special interest the receiver shall take such steps to preserve, maintain, recover, display or dispose of the same as the President of the Board of Trade shall direct ".

Mr. John Nott: I beg to move, That Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will wreck the rules of order if the hon. Member seeks to move more than one new Clause at a time. He can move the first one and speak to the others.

Mr. Nott: Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to have a vote on the others?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have selected the first new Clause and there can be a Division on the first.

Mr. Nott: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause and the new Clauses grouped with it are an attempt to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to provide some protection for wrecks over 100 years of age deemed to be of national and/or historic importance. I do not intend to go into the background of these Clauses, because I did so in the introduction of my Ten-Minute Rule Bill last Wednesday.
I would like, however, to draw attention to the news which appeared in many of to-day's newspapers about the "Amsterdam", a Dutch East Indiaman which sank off Hastings in 1748. Yesterday, many students, historians and archaeologists were surveying the "Amsterdam" to discover whether a salvage operation would be worth while. What is required is that the "Amsterdam" and historic ships of that sort should be scheduled as of national and historic importance so that they continue to he available for study and research over the coming years.
Unfortunately, the law is of great complexity. The complications of amending it are also very great indeed. I have not had the assistance of parliamentary draftsmen nor of salvage experts in the Board of Trade. However, with the assistance of salvage lawyers and counsel specialising in marine law I have attempted a series of changes which, I believe, go most of the way to achieving the desired result. If the Government believe that the objectives are worth while—and I think they will—I hope that they will take the opportunity of accepting them and perhaps making any amendments to improve the Clauses in another place.
I should feel rather disappointed and somewhat aggrieved if, when the National Maritime Museum, the Committee for Nautical Archaeology, archaeologists, divers and historians generally, have been clamouring for a change in the law in this respect for many years, the Government did not take the opportunity of

including these Clauses in the Bill now before the House.
I am well aware that the Bill may not be considered by the Government to be the ideal form of legislation to contain these changes. However, all the existing laws of salvage are contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. In this Bill, the Government have included some items which do not derive directly from the Pearson Report. As the Government have included some extraneous items, I ask only that they might consider, here or in another place, including my Clauses and putting them in legislative form so that they can be of service in the future.
I shall not weary the House with the law, except to say that it stems from the 1894 Act, which was amended in 1906, and again in 1938 and 1968, to bring in sea fisheries, aircraft and other matters; salvage problems in connection with fishing vessels and aircraft having arisen since the passing of the 1894 Act.
It is the date which indicates why the law needs amending now. In 1894, diving was a difficult, if not an extremely hazardous, occupation. Those responsible for that Act could not have foreseen the huge advances in diving techniques which have occurred since the Act became law and which now frequently lead to the discovery of many fascinating relics of the past.
There is nothing in the law stemming from the 1894 Act to prevent anyone from removing any object from an historic wreck or causing serious damage to items of great historical and archaeological interest, as long as the person reports his finds to the local receiver of wrecks. Buildings are protected under the law. I own an historic building in Cornwall. I cannot make changes to it without obtaining the relevant permission. All that I seek is that ships of equal archaeological and historic interest should be able to be scheduled in a similar way to buildings.
Anyone who has seen the "Vasa", in Stockholm Harbour knows how tragic it would have been if this ship had not been excavated and restored. The sad fact is that under our law there is no way in which the "Vasa" and similar ships could have been protected. Britain is one of the few countries with historic wrecks


around its coast which does not have legislation to provide the protection which I seek. The most recent country to have introduced legislation is Australia. I have the Australian legislation here. It is to some extent on the model of the Australian legislation that these Clauses have been framed. All the Mediterranean countries have very detailed legislation to protect historic wrecks. I seek a similar arrangement for Britain.
I stress that from an archaeological and historical point of view it is the context of a find which is often vital, because a few scraps of wood, the handle of a knife, some canvass, by themselves, if delivered up one by one to the receiver of wrecks, do not have any intrinsic or real value. The context of them may be of great archaeological and historical importance. They may form the contents of a seaman's chest and tell a real story. I am referring not only to the vessel, but also to the objects which may be discovered with it.
In my part of the country—West Cornwall—it is most unusual to find an historic wreck intact, because the tides and the sands are so strong that wrecks tend to disintegrate very quickly. Nevertheless, there is the case now of the "Amsterdam" at Hastings; the wreck is under the mud; it can be preserved. It is that type of case, as well as the case of the "Association" which I mentioned in my Ten-Minute Rule Bill, that I have in mind.
Fundamentally, the law is deficient in two respects. First, the black market sale of recovered material at an immediate 100 per cent. of value is much more attractive to the diver than the official declaration for a normal maximum of 30 per cent. of its value after protracted and lengthy negotiations. In other words, the present rewards are too low for the diver.
Second, as I said earlier, the destruction of property is not prevented, as there is not a law of under-water trespass in Britain, nor has the receiver any instructions to do other than accept material, irrespective of its intrinsic or historic worth and irrespective of its ownership or contract.
New Clause 3 attempts to define "historic wreck": the phrase covers

only wrecks and objects in or near them which are 100 years old or more and which may be subsequently
found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal water 
The wording excludes any historic wrecks or related articles which are already in someone's personal possession.
New Clause 4 describes the procedure to be followed on the discovery of an historic wreck. It must be reported. All wrecks must be reported now, but this Clause would provide that an historic wreck must be reported and may be excavated, or articles removed there from, only with the permission of the Board of Trade.
The "Association", off the Isle of Scilly, is an old naval vessel and, therefore, belongs to the Crown. During the exploration of the "Association", it was the Ministry of Defence which was giving permission to dive on and excavate the "Association". I am seeking to bring this within one Department, because the Board of Trade will remember that I went from one Department to another trying to bring some order into the situation when the "Association" site was being blown apart with dynamite. It was absolutely hopeless. There was no one Minister or Ministry responsible.
New Clause 4 thus describes the procedure to be followed on the discovery of an historic wreck.
New Clause 5 indicates that, if an historic wreck is not deemed to be of historic interest, it will revert to the owner if he can be traced within a period of time, whereas new Clause 7 provides that, if an historic wreck is deemed to be of historical and archaeological interest, it shall be the property of the Crown.
Finally, new Clause 8 gives the President of the Board of Trade discretion as to how historic wrecks of national importance shall be preserved or disposed of.
I have two misgivings about these Clauses. First, as a Conservative, I do not like giving the President of the Board of Trade these extensive discretionary powers; but I am advised by the National Maritime Museum, divers, salvage experts, and so on, that probably there is no other body, either private or governmental, which could exercise this discretion so well as the President of the


Board of Trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I refer, not to the person, but to the office.
Second, I have sought some other means whereby historic wrecks which are deemed to be of national importance might not revert to the Crown, but, instead, remain, where rights are proved which practically never occurs, in private ownership. However. I have decided that my worries in this respect are of no practical consequence, simply because nearly all historic wrecks are naval vessels or probably belonged to private trading companies of which the Crown is now the successor. So, in practical terms, nearly all of them belong to the Crown, anyhow.
Those which do not belong to the Crown and where ownership is established probably belong to underwriters. All the evidence shows that, when underwriters find to their astonishment that an historic wreck is delivered up to them, they are so overwhelmed with amazement, the ship having been written off their books more than 100 years ago, that they are prepared to sell the wreck to the divers or whoever is exploring it for a few pounds.
I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, if he deems an historic wreck to be of national and archaeological importance, should pay compensation to the underwriters. I believe that that would be necessary. The amounts are very tiny. I find it impossible to frame provisions as to compensation. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsman will be able to do this.
I hope that the Minister will regard these attempts with some favour. If this opportunity is passed, with the pressure upon parliamentary time I can see no likelihood of any legislation on this subject being brought before the House for another three or four years. What other Bill will come forward which will provide as good an opportunity for the Government to amend this law? The legislation stems from the old Merchant Shipping Act and we now have a Merchant Shipping Bill.
This is an urgent matter and many people feel very strongly about it and there is a need to revise the law. I hope that the Minister of State will think about this and perhaps agree to insert these new Clauses, or something like

them, into the Bill when it comes before another place.

4.35 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: As one who supported the Ten-Minute Rule Bill introduced recently by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), I should like to give what support I can to his new Clauses.
I have read with great interest the history of the salvage works on the "Association", on the Gilstone Ledge off the Scillies, as reported by one of the best known Cornish wreckers—with all respect to my hon. Friend—and I have also met some of those who took part in salvage on the same wreck on behalf of the Fleet Air Arm at Culrose, who had an operating unit of divers who were working not simultaneously with, but certainly in close succession to, the others on this wreck.
It is inescapable that the rivalry and somewhat competitive efforts of these two salvage groups on this particularly valuable wreck from which so much of intrinsic value and so much knowledge has been derived, did a good deal of harm to the cause of the recovery of the material and the synthesis or resynthesis of the history.
Therefore, I feel that it is most advantageous that it should be known quite clearly who has the right to salvage a wreck when it is of such value and that this legislation seems the most appropriate, most ready and the only convenient way to establish some rights on this subject.

Mr. E. Shinwell: It is significant that when the Opposition discover that there is an industry, or something akin to an industry, which produces no profit they are ready to hand it over to the State.
I must say that these are strange speeches coming from the Tory Party. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) suggested, in an excellent speech—and he always makes excellent speeches—that there should be created a monopoly by the State in the discovery and preservation of historic wrecks.

Mr. Nott: No.

Mr. Shinwell: That is what I understood from the hon. Gentleman's speech,


but if he did not mean that perhaps he will tell us what he did mean.

Mr. Nott: Anyone can excavate an historic wreck as long as he has the permission of the President of the Board of Trade, and certainly there is no question of any ancient wrecks reverting to the Crown which are not of great national importance.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman would impose responsibility on the Board of Trade to spend a lot of money to discover these wrecks and preserve them, and then somebody comes along to claim private ownership and he gets off with the swag. This is Tory philosophy, of course. It is going a little too far and, in any event, I do not think that it has anything to do with this Bill. If the hon. Member for St. Ives or any of his colleagues wish to introduce a Bill for this purpose, or raise the matter on a Supply day, we could have an excellent debate on the subject, because it is associated with public ownership and private enterprise. We could divide the House on the issue, but surely not on this proposal.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: How singularly appropriate it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) should have leapt to his feet because of a sudden apprehension—

Mr. Shinwell: I know what the hon. Member is about to say, so he need not bother.

Mr. Onslow: —that he was threatened with new Clause 4. That is what woke him, but I hope that we can now be serious again.
I hope that the Minister of State will have listened with care to the arguments which were so, persuasively advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I support my hon. Friend in a capacity which a great many other hon. Members could also claim—that of an armchair archaelogist. [An HON. MEMBER: "And an armchair politician, too."] Let the hon. Member speak for the armchair politician. I am not concerned with them at the moment.
I wish to cut across the party lines and remind the House that those of us who watch, as most of us do when we

can, the television programmes of Jacques Cousteau showing him discovering wrecks in the Caribbean, of wrecks which have been uncovered off Ceylon, off Florida, in the Mediterranean, and off the shores of these islands, must have seen the enormous advances which have been made in the techniques available to archeologists in this field over the last 10 years and the way in which their work can now be brought into our own homes. No one should be in any doubt about the extent of public interest in this country: here we have something unique—a time capsule which we have only just begun to know how to open, the past locked up underwater round our shores.
And the law to protect it is deficient. There is no certainty even as to who owns the "Amsterdam". I have seen it stated in the Press that it is probably owned by the Dutch Government as the legal heirs of the Dutch East India Company. How ridiculous that there should be a piece of Holland buried in the sands off Bulverhythe. You might as well say that the Italian Government own that Roman barge that was found in the Thames, or that the Spanish Government are the legal possessors of the Armada galleons wrecked around our own coast.
These are some of the jewels of Western civilisation. It is up to us to see that they are protected and properly cared for and the opportunity now occurs for us to do so. I hope that we can devote a minute or two even amidst matters which other hon. Members may find more serious or important to thinking about the best solution and trying to do something to protect these historic wrecks.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sure that we have all enjoyed the miniature debate which has taken place on this fascinating and important subject. My reaction to the most attractive speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), I am sure that he will not misunderstand me if I say it was the second most attractive speech that we heard in the debate—was this. I could not disagree with the argument he advanced about providing for the proper recovery and maintainance, and the making available to the public, of those wrecks which are valuable in a historical and archælogical sense. The question of ownership opens up a


separate debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said in a teasing but very percipient speech.
This immediately takes me to my second point on the hon. Gentleman's proposals. I agree that there is a need to review, consolidate and clarify the area of law covered by the new Clauses, but how are we to do it? I cannot accept that within the next few days—for it is only a few days between now and the time when the other place considers the Bill—we should somehow produce the right Amendment or Amendments to solve all these complex problems of interpretation and administration. Though I have much sympathy with his objectives, I would urge upon the hon. Gentleman that we should press for a proper study of the issues involved.
We are addressing ourselves to the inadequacy of Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. It is deficient. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, since those days, there has been the development of modern diving and other techniques which make it possible to locate and investigate wrecks which have lain on the sea bed for many years. The purpose of Part IX of that Act was to ensure the protection of ships, and their equipment and cargoes, which either were in immediate distress or were the subject of recent shipwreck. Although it was intended to codify the law as to entitlement to wreck, I would concede that there are difficulties in applying its provision to the type of wreck which the new Clauses are intended to protect.
I could discuss the matter at length. Several important aspects have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. But we cannot hope to put the matter right by assembling a piecemeal provision in the form of new Clauses or Amendments between now and the next stage—which is really the final stage—of the Bill.
I think that the whole House agrees that Part IX of the 1894 Act should be taken up and examined in detail as regards its maritime, legal and other deficiencies and that a thorough job should be done. Thereafter, at the appropriate time, which need not be unduly delayed, for the House usually has its way if there is sufficient sentiment in

favour of a certain course, the House could proceed to enact the right provisions.
Such provisions will not necessarily be conclusive. My Ministerial caution holds back my personal enthusiasm. I have myself, from time to time, felt that there was a need to reform the position on the preservation of historic wrecks. However, my studies have shown that we cannot hope to do anything meaningful without a thorough-going examination of all the issues involved and the provision of something better than Part IX of the 1894 Act—and because of the complexities, even that may not be the perfect answer.
While, therefore, I have the utmost sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, subject to the points raised by my right hon. Friend, I must tell the House that I see no practical way of adopting the course which he proposes in the very late stages of the Bill. In any case, the subject requires searching and careful examination so that what is produced is a substantial improvement on what we have in Part IX of the 1894 Act.
I understand that more than one university and the interested professional and cultural associations are now working on this matter, or certain aspects of it. There is a strong case for bringing these efforts together in a more co-ordinated attempt to produce a comprehensive study leading to a truly meaningful solution.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) for his repeated efforts during recent months to bring to the attention of the House and the country a question which the Minister of State has acknowledged to be important. I am sure that all those who outside the House have an interest in archaeological matters will recognise the hard work which my hon. Friend has done.
I wish to correct what I take to be the effect of the mutterings from the benches opposite during this short debate. I am not referring here to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who burst into articulate speech, but to the view held, apparently, on the benches opposite that this is not


an appropriate occasion to raise the matter. I could not agree less.
For the first time for many years, we are here legislating comprehensively for the matters dealt with in Merchant Shipping Acts. Each one of the new Clauses spoken to by my hon. Friend is designed to amend Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act. This is, therefore, an entirely proper occasion for the matter to be aired, and I entirely reject the idea that, somehow, it is not right to do so.
I take the Minister of State's point that a great deal more investigation may well be necessary before the House is in a position to pass legislation to deal with the matter—indeed, my hon. Friend's new Clauses may be taken as a valuable starting point—butI noted the right hon. Gentleman's observation that this is a question which needs to be taken up and examined in detail. What does he mean by that? Are the Government prepared to set up a committee of inquiry, a Departmental Committee perhaps, or to make arrangements to finance research in an outside institution? What will they do about it? It is not enough that Ministers say that the law is defective, that the question needs to be taken up and examined in detail, unless, at the same time, they are prepared to tell the House what they propose to do.
Perhaps the Minister could have the leave of the House to speak again and explain more specifically what he would recommend, or what Ministers are prepared to suggest, as positive proposals for action. In that event, my hon. Friend's purpose will have been well served. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he used the phrase "taken up and examined in detail"? This is a Government responsibility. No other single body could deal with it in the same way. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more specific than he has been so far.

Mr. Nott: Mr. Nott rose—

Mr. John Mendelson: Nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Nott: I hope that the Minister will respond briefly to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).

I was delighted with the short speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). This debate gave him a great opportunity, and I am glad that he took it. He was not present when I moved recently under the Ten-Minute Rule for leave to bring in my Private Member's Bill, but I sought at that time to assure right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite that I was not referring, by the term "historic wreck", to any Privy Councillors.
This is a serious matter. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is the question of ownership, and I do not see how that can be resolved now. It is a difficult question. I think that, in the end, ownership of historic wrecks of great national importance will probably have to be deemed to be held by the Crown, since I see no other solution. However, I recognise that there are theoretical problems in this respect.
I do not wish to divide the House on the Clause, but I very much hope that the Minister will say a little more about the possibility of a Departmental inquiry. In 1967, when this matter first came up in its most flagrant form with the discovery of the "Association", the Board of Trade said that it was looking into this area of the law. The Minister now says that it is time for this area to be examined. What has been happening during the past three years? Has not something been prepared since this type of difficulty first arose?

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I thought that I gave a helpful and sympathetic reply. I am being pressed to make an off-the-cuff statement of Government policy. Indeed. I am asked to go further; into the whole question of financing such a project. This I cannot do. What I can do is tell hon. Members that in recent days, as well as today, the House has heard enough on this issue for me to take away from this debate an intention to see how we can move in this matter. Hon. Members will not expect me to go beyond that.
I remind the House that other Departments are concerned with this matter. I will be discussing with my colleagues the issues that have been raised today and in recent days. I am sure that tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT will be read with interest by many people inside and


outside the House. In that way, things may move forward. I cannot give undertakings now. I can only express my willingness to consider how best, and how soon, this matter can be tackled.

Mr. Nott: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

VESSELS OTHER THAN FISHING VESSELS AND NON-SEAGOING VESSELS

In the application of this Act to vessels other than fishing vessels and non-seagoing vessels and persons serving in them, the provisions contained in Schedule (Offences in Vessels other than Fishing Vessels and Non-seagoing Vessels) to this Act apply in addition to the other provisions of this Act.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer): No. 58, in Clause 29, page 17, line 13 at beginning insert:
'The Board of Trade may make regulations that'

Amendment No. 59 in Clause 30, page 17, line 18 at beginning insert:
'The Board of Trade may make regulations that'

Amendment No. 60 in Clause 31, page 17, line 22 at beginning insert:
'The Board of Trade may make regulations that'.

I understand that it would also be convenient for the House to discuss new Schedule No. 57 which stands in my name—Offences in Vessels other than Fishing Vessels and Non-seagoing Vessels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): So be it.

Mr. McNamara: I apologise for the lateness of the new Clause being tabled. Hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading and Committee debate

will know my attitude on this matter and the attitude that I have adopted throughout these discussions. I am seeking by the new Clause, and the Amendments which we are discussing with it, to find a method to reconcile two apparent irreconcileables. I appreciate that frequently the Minister has gone out of his way to meet the various difficulties which hon. Members have raised. I hope that on this occasion I can solve a difficulty.
We are here concerned not with the question of safety at sea or the difficulties which face seamen and seafarers in their everyday lives at sea. Clause 28 deals with that aspect and I will not at this stage cover that ground. We are here dealing with industrial discipline and, in attempting to find the best method of achieving it, difficulty arises.
I wish to reconcile certain points which were made in Committee with my attitude towards the question of bringing criminal sanctions into the sphere of industrial discipline in circumstances other than where problems of safety arise. I have, therefore, for the purpose of the new Clause, accepted the arguments which the Minister put in Committee when we discussed a similar new Clause of mine.
This industry needs sanctions of this kind, but we must consider how they can be removed as time goes by. That is the aim of the Amendments. I suggest that instead of having penal sanctions enshrined in the Bill, where they would be likely to remain for a long time—with such permanency they would create discontent and unrest and be regarded as a bogey man—they should be embodied in a provision which could be easily removed in part or in whole, as the industry finds that it can do without them.
Thus, instead of enshrining them in a mandatory form, I propose that the Board of Trade should have power to impose sanctions by regulations. In the new Schedule, which is modelled on the Schedule in the Bill dealing with fishing vessels, that Department would have power to make regulations applying to different types of vessel or to different vessels of the same class in different circumstances. This would overcome one of the major difficulties expressed in Committee; that of trying to define home, middle and foreign trade, bearing in mind


the need to achieve exceptions for certain vessels.
If my proposal is accepted, the Board of Trade will issue regulations embodying the sanctions contained in the new Clause, and then it will be for the industry to demonstrate that some or all of them might be withdrawn because they are no longer necessary. In other words, I am endeavouring to create a flexible situation. One by one the various sanctions could be removed so that irritating pinpricks on industrial relations would not last for ever in the shipping industry.
I believe that the new Clause meets the majority of objections which were raised when a similar proposal was discussed in Committee. On that occasion the Minister of State said that we were in dangerous waters. We were discussing, in particular, the question of home trade, and we needed evidence to show that either the existing legislation had preventd accidents from happening or that defiance of existing regulations had caused accidents to occur. If neither of these propositions could be proved, then the argument would be a negative one. One cannot prove that things would or would not have happened because of the existence of legislation. One can only make a subjective judgment. My judgment is that such accidents would not have happened. One would also have to demonstrate that other nations whose ships use our waters have suffered casualties because they have lacked this legislation.
5.0 p.m.
The second main objection put forward by my right hon. Friend was that at present there existed no industrial machinery to deal with this problem. I disputed that. I thought that the difficulty could be overcome. One of the welcome features of the Bill is the provision of shipboard disciplinary tribunals. Within the Federation scheme there already exist in the major ports the rudiments of an effective scheme for ports discipline, for ships and for seamen.
It may be argued that I am trying at a late stage to introduce a major change in the Bill. I do not concede that argument since I have persistently argued against these provisions. Even if one were to accept it as a major change, it would be

a major change only on paper. All the regulations under the Amendments would be made by the President of the Board of Trade and would come into operation at whatever date was decided. It would then be up to the industry to decide whether to get rid of these onerous provisions. I believe that they could do so.
In the past few years there has been sufficient good will on both sides in the development of shipboard liaison officers and shipboard committees, although we may disagree about the extent of their influence. But these Committees have been in existence, and there is an opportunity within the industry to create the sort of situation which I should like to see.
The argument for a major change does not hold good since the bare bones of a system already exist. More is promised in the Bill. Furthermore, nobody's position would be prejudiced as a result of the Amendments without proper industrial negotiating and agreement. The burden would lie upon the people who oppose penal sanctions to show that the industry could flourish without them and gradually they could be removed.
The other argument advanced in favour of retaining these penal Clauses is that they have a cumulative value. The argument is that one links up with another and the total effect of the penal Clauses which have existed ever since the 1894 Act is of general value in ensuring safety and discipline. This again is a subjective judgment about which one can argue. The argument involves a consideration as to whether it is better to have these Clauses, knowing the irritation which they cause and the trouble and bitterness which can arise from them, or whether it is better to get rid of them and have a complete system of industrial safety.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealing with the Clause in Committee said that he thought it was a middle way. On the one hand was the Federation scheme involving shipboard discipline and on the other hand were all the rigours of Clause 28. We want to see something in between those two extremes. I feel that retaining the penal Clauses is not the way to take a middle course, remembering all the trouble and bitterness which it could arouse. The best way to go


about the matter is to strengthen voluntary agreements and to encourage voluntary organisations within the industry so that it disciplines itself.
I do not wish to go over all the points on the various Clauses which were made both on Second Reading and in Committee about the meaning of this or that phrase. There was sufficient weight in the discussions on those Clauses to show that even these medium-term Clauses contain elements which are open to abuse and doubt and which basically are penalty Clauses. I was born in a port and now represent one. I have witnessed both official and unofficial disputes and I know that one of the major causes of grievance has been the existence of the penal provisions of the 1894 Act.
The object of my Amendment and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is to seek to get rid of this aspect. The Amendments are not concerned with safety provisions. It is of course necessary to have strong provisions to preserve safety at sea, as it is in the mines. This matter concerns simply the question of industrial discipline. The Bill has gone a very great way to meet the present difficulties and great credit is due to the Government for what they have done. Many of the abuses suffered in the past by seamen have now been wiped away, procedures have been simplified, and conditions have been improved. But I should like my Front Bench colleagues to think again about the matters touched upon by these Amendments.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I wish to support my hon. Friend on his new Clause and in what he has said about Amendments Nos. 57 to 60. These Amendments raised matters of fundamental importance.
Our Amendments seek to do three things. First, that the Board of Trade may, by regulation, specify any misconduct under Clauses 29, 30 and 31. Secondly, that such regulations may make different provisions for different kinds of vessels other than fishing vessels. Thirdly, that no regulation shall be made under this Clause unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses.
I would have preferred this matter not to have been discussed in the House. It

would have been much better if these offending provisions had been struck from the Bill in Committee. Unfortunately, they were not. These are statutory provisions in the sense that they are being written into the Bill. We are trying to make them permissive in the sense that they may be introduced or revoked according to the decision of the House. There are three main arguments why this should be done.
As did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I stress that the Bill is a very good Bill. It is a tremendous advance and it has been much improved in Committee. Some of the difficulties mentioned on Second Reading were ironed out in Committee, and all credit for that should go to the Minister and to my hon. Friends on the Committee. But it would be a tragedy if this exceptionally good Bill were clouded by the residue, the dregs, of the old Act. This is the essence of the argument this afternoon.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Will my hon. Friend explain to me and others whether he is speaking to new Clause 9, which appears to deal with fishing vessels and non-seagoing vessels, or directing his remarks to the whole of the Bill and the whole of the Merchant Navy?

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend has got it somewhat wrong. New Clause 9 is followed by a Schedule and Amendments to other Clauses. The argument does not apply to fishing vessels; quite the reverse. What we are saying is that what is now applied to fishing vessels should be applied to non-fishing vessels. I hope that I have cleared up that point to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend who has had much personal experience, with me, of the problems of seamen over the years.
The second argument is that these provisions are not wanted by the biggest union in the industry. The National Union of Seamen regards these provisions as unnecessary and likely to cause much industrial unrest. I can give an example to support the union's view. Some time ago, during the early stages of the Bill, I received a letter from the crew of the M.V. "Media" from Liverpool. They signed a document which I forwarded to my hon. Friends on the


Committee. Referring to Clauses 27 to 31, the letter said:
These fines if imposed, and these are the main clauses that we object to, could bring about a situation aboard ship, especially if it was out of the U.K. for a long period, when things could get completely out of control. It would also make things very difficult for the Master.
This was the view of rank and file seamen. Some of us have been fairly close to rank and file seamen over the years, mediating on one occasion on their behalf and trying to get settlements to disputes on other occasions.
5.15 p.m.
I want to refer to industrial unrest. This brings me to my third argument. The seamen were looking forward to the Bill and if, rightly or wrongly, they feel that they have been let down, there will clearly be developed an attitude which in certain circumstances could lead to an increase in the problem with industrial unrest breaking out in time.
I know exactly how the seaman felt about the penal provisions of the old Act. Every seamen's strike on Merseyside and elsewhere in the country since the Second World War, although perhaps beginning about wages or conditions, within hours has concerned the penal provisions of the old Act, and a demand for the repeal of the old Act has always been in the forefront of the demands of the seamen. The 1947 strike was an example; the 1955 was another and so was the strike of 1960. Even in the 1966 official dispute the issue of the repeal of the 1894 Act was raised. There is no doubt that seamen feel exceedingly strongly about the penal provisions, and have always done so. It would be a great tragedy if the good parts of the Bill and its great advances were overshadowed by this disciplinary section.
The National Union of Seamen, whose brief I have received, has made it perfectly clear that it is prepared to accept the provisions of Clause 28 on safety measures. Incidentally, some of its disciplinary provisions are somewhat harsher than those of the old Act. It does so as a sign of good faith. However, it does not want the middle line provisions to be included. I think that the union is absolutely justified in that view.
I ask hon. Members to consider the fishing industry and the Holland-Martin Report on Trawler Safety. On the subject of discipline, paragraph 252 says:
There is, however, one relevant point we wish to make."—
The Committee is commenting on the general situation in general under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894—
It has been widely agreed by the witnesses we have seen that the industry should seek as far as possible to administer its own system of discipline and should not rely more than can be helped on criminal sanctions imposed by the Courts. An effective system of 'industrial' discipline operated by both sides of the industry, can provide more flexible—and often more effective—controls over disorderly elements at sea than any statutory code.
All that the National Union of Seamen is saying is that if that can be accepted in the fishing industry a similar situation can be accepted in merchant shipping as a whole, and it has a very reasonable case.
In our Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) drew attention to the difficulties that could arise over the disciplinary Clauses, and made a great point of the matter, and I quoted the article written by the General Secretary of the N.U.S. in the September issue of the union's journal. He said:
Unfortunately, the Bill reflects the belief that fines are still a necessary deterrent to indiscipline. Therefore, it proposes that the authority of the master to impose them shall be retained. This is enough to cause dismay, quite apart from the proclaimed intention to dramatically increase the sums of money which can be extracted in this way. We have always been opposed to both fines and the method of their imposition.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it not fair to Mr. Hogarth, the General Secretary, to point out that in that paragraph he was talking about fines imposed by the master, whereas, as I understand the purpose of the new Clause and the Amendments, we are talking about the fines which would be imposed by a court, for the criminal offences?

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Hogarth went on to deal with the whole question of monetary punishment. I quoted what he had written on Second Reading, and then said:
That is a very clear statement of the position of the union and I hope that, in Committee, the point will be noted. This is why some of us take the view that Clauses 28, 29 and 30 could be dropped as being totally


unnecessary. If they are not dropped, at least they should be drastically altered."—[OFFKIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1400.]

Mr. John Page: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Clauses 29, 30 and 31. He seems to be going by the old draft.

Mr. Heffer: I am talking about the position as it was then. Of course the numbers of the Clauses have slipped back a bit as a result of the Committee stage. I am quoting what I said on Second Reading. That was a very unnecessary intervention, and a complete waste of time.

Mr. John Mendelson: The port of Harrow is not up to date.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is for the convenience of the House if hon. Members talk about Clauses as they are currently numbered, rather than giving their previous numbers, because the Bill has been through many vicissitudes.

Mr. Heffer: The offending Clauses could be suggested to be similar in essence to the type of proposals in the White Paper "In Place of Strife". The T.U.C. has made an agreement with the Government, which I applaud. The N.U.S. is quite right to point out that despite that agreement similar Clauses are still being included in the Bill. There is a strong feeling on the matter on this side of the House.
We are not condemning the Bill. I hope that no one will suggest that we do not welcome every aspect of it with the exception of these parts. It is a great advance. But is it not possible, even now, for some changes to be made before the Bill goes to the other place? If that is not possible, will my right hon. Friend tell us that at least efforts could be made at the earliest possible moment to meet the needs and desires of the trade union movement on both the general question of the T.U.C. agreement and the specific question the N.U.S., and that he could consider amending legislation? If that could be done, I assure him that we have no desire to cause a great rumpus about the question. But I could not look my seafaring constituents in the face if I returned to Liverpool and said that I voted wholeheartedly for the penal

Clauses. I know what they would say to me and what they would think of me, on the basis of my actions in the past. If my right hon. Friend could give us some indication of what the Government has in mind, even at this late stage, perhaps he could satisfy the real desires and feelings on this side of the House. Something should be done to overcome the problem.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I felt when I came here today that it would be unnecessary for me or anyone else to speak very much about the principle of penal Clauses. It will be very unusual if my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I look at matters in a different light, particularly matters concerning seamen, in even the smallest degree. But I can assure him that if I returned to Liverpool, as I hope to, I would with all the justification in the world say that the Measure was a most progressive merchant shipping Bill. It has got rid of things which penalised seamen in many ways for almost 100 years, and it introduces a belated completely new deal for British sailors. Many generations of past seamen would applaud the Bill if they could see it today.

Mr. Heffer: Nothing I said contradicts anything my hon. Friend has said about the Bill. I entirely agree with him.

Mr. Mahon: Hardly anyone could disagree with what I have said up to now. I am coming to the point, with great respect to my two adversaries, who have been friends of mine for many years. It is with regret that I disagree with them, and I will not disagree too much.
No one could have done more to satisfy the needs of the industry than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State during the protracted negotiations leading up to the Committee stage, and during it. He has done everything that he could be expected to do. It is with regret that I see this Amendment brought forward. It is not the responsibility of all hon. Members.
5.30 p.m.
Negotiations have taken place over many years between the Maritime Board and the National Union of Seamen. Every time that we pressed for the Bill we were told that it was not ready, that it was a massive document, and that the


penal Clauses were causing a good deal of concern to the union, the shipowners and the Maritime Board. I should be remiss and lacking in courage, and certainly lacking in charity and justice, if I did not say that my regard for the Board of Trade has increased in view of the part played by the Minister of State during the passage of the Bill. I do not usually compliment anyone in Government, as is well known. It is regrettable that this Amendment should be put forward at this late stage. Is there any merit in its coming forward at this late stage?
I am the Member of Parliament for the biggest part of the best port in England. I notice that the N.U.S. document which has been sent to us was not signed by the union's general secretary. As a man of honour, I should tell the House that I telephoned the general secretary, whom I have known for many years, and said that this was an historic Bill and that the proposals in the N.U.S.'s document would make great changes in it. I said to him, "Why did you not sign the document? You are the general secretary". He gave me a very reasonable explanation. It seems that the acting assistant general secretary, Mr. Spruhan, has full responsibility for this document. I am assured that there is no cleavage in the union. I am glad about that. It is a perfectly normal statement to be made, but it goes a very long way.
The union says in the summary of its document:
We appreciate that it is unusual at this point in time of a Bill's formulation to canvass for support in the altering of this new Merchant Shipping Bill.
We have had numerous consultations with the Ministers involved and various committees where we have pressed the view that the penal sanctions are totally unnecessary. Unfortunately we have been unsuccessful in convincing the Government of our arguments.
But the union also said that it knows that there are strong conflicting elements, as there always are, and that it is evident that it will not be able to get all that it requires. When has it ever been possible for working class people to get all that they require all at once?
I will not try to put words into the Minister's mouth, but if he can make concessions at this stage they will be welcome. I stand foursquare with him

and those who served on the Standing Committee who I know did all that they could in view of the difficult position that they were in. While this is not a perfect Bill, and while we would wish the penal Clauses to be ameliorated, safety at sea is very important indeed.
It was said in the Sunday Times of 8th March that
Parliament thinks statutory discipline is necessary because the seamen are a bunch of drunken layabouts.
That was a most unfortunate statement. If I said that, I should be saying it about my own flesh and blood, and I make the strongest objection to it. We want the penal Clauses to be done away with or at least softened.
It is said that the Merchant Navy should not be classed with the Royal Navy from the point of view of discipline. I have the highest regard for any man who sails aboard any ship. The disciplines of the Royal Navy may not be required in the Merchant Navy, but the sea on which men sail, whether they be in the Merchant Navy or the Royal Navy, is the same cruel sea. It imposes its own disciplines. I do not want those disciplines to be harsher or harder than they need be.
But the penal Clauses are not the only Clauses in the Bill. There are 98 of them dealing with pay, crew agreements, the discharge of seamen, and so on. The whole gamut of sea life is covered in this excellent Bill. It is regrettable that we are picking out in a pin-pricking way the difficulties—[Interruption.] I am making my own speech, and I mean in a pinpricking way. I could point to other deficiencies in the Bill, but a great deal is accomplished in it. As I said on Second Reading, I sent a telegram saying:
I request your urgent intervention on behalf of Mr. Patrick Neary who has now been imprisoned for activities in British ports …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1351.]
I was the only man in the House and in the country who objected when Patrick Neary went to prison. I made representations in the House on his behalf. To my knowledge, he was the last man on unofficial strike who went to prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton knows all about this matter.
The Minister has done a reasonably good job—if I wanted to go into my Gaelic rhetoric, I could say that he has done a monumental job—for British seamen. Let not the N.U.S. be too unctuous about what is being done. We want peace in industry. We must have peace right across the board. There must be understanding in the union and understanding between the members of the union—the union first and then its members. That has not always been so. I could give chapter and verse of what happened in the union and of how I helped to keep it in existence.
The Government have introduced the Bill with the idea of bringing justice and peace to the industry. It is a tremendous step forward. If the Minister can make the concessions which have been requested, I will not oppose them. If my right hon. Friend cannot make those concessions he will have my support for doing what he has done on behalf of British seamen.
Some of the things which have been said in the paper about five lashes instead of ten cut me to the quick, because we have made a great deal of progress in the way that men go to sea and in the way they live aboard ship. It will always be a hard life, but some of us have spent our life in making things better.
It has not only been the National Union of Seamen which has made the improvements. Indeed, we were streets ahead of the National Union of Seamen. We were doing the propaganda for making things better at sea when the union was recalcitrant and even on the side of the bosses right, left and centre. I only remind those people not to start swatting us down simply because they cannot accomplish everything at once. They must not belittle the efforts which have been made by the Government and they must not be churlish about the good will which has been extended. After all the difficult times that the Prime Minister and everybody else have had to live through they would be churlish if they did not try to maintain a balance and recognise exactly how much has been accomplished. It may be that they will. Perhaps through my speech and through the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr.

McNamara) they will be able to get the position into balance.
I believe that an excellent job has been done. I will listen with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Minister says and I congratulate him on all he has done during the course of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: I begin by declaring my interest. As an honorary life member of the National Union of Seamen for many years—I pay no subscriptions, which is an advantage—I support the view of the National Union of Seamen. I want, however, to make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt that I am concerned equally about the future of the Merchant Navy. All the enthusiasm which has been generated by the presentation of the Bill will, in my view, be evaporated unless something is done about the penal Clauses of the Bill.
Whether or not we accept the, perhaps, belated submissions of the National Union of Seamen, it might have been to our advantage had there been previous discussion on those submissions which have now been made to us. I disregard what happened in the past, and I equally disregard what appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday. I rely, for what it may be worth, on my own experience.
5.45 p.m.
When we speak about penal Clauses, what exactly do we mean? We must, of course, accept the view that the master of a vessel is in control. There can be no reservation about that. The question arises, however, whether we are to allow the master, whoever he may be—whether he is the master of a tramp vessel, an intermediate liner, a great liner or even a coaster—to impose penalties on members of his crew irrespective of the circumstances, which may be fortuitous and which occur occasionally and accidentally. That is the question that I venture to ask my colleagues on this side of the House.
I understand the position of hon. Members opposite. They have been briefed by the Shipping Federation, by ships' officers and, naturally, by the Chamber of Shipping. Those are all excellent people. I make no imputation whatever about their integrity and sincerity. Are we, however, to accept their point of view concerning what


penalties should be imposed upon seamen aboard ship?
After all, those people are in their offices and in their chambers. The present-day shipowners hardly visit vessels nowadays. There was a time when shipowners visited vessels and engaged in conversation and discussions with members of crews and who concerned themselves with accommodation, wages, amenities and all the matters which are of concern to ships' crews. Nowadays, for the most part, shipowners are financiers. They care very little or nothing, except in an indirect fashion, about what happens on board ship.
There is no disagreement that Clause 28 is a very desirable Clause. If anybody aboard ship, whether an ordinary seaman, an able seaman, anybody in the engine room or an officer, commits an act which may lead to the destruction of the vessel or which may impede navigation, or if a member of the crew conducts himself in an irresponsible fashion which is inimical to the welfare of his comrades aboard ship, obviously the provisions embodied in Clause 28 should be implemented.
My only reservation, which I expressed on Second Reading—I challenge contradiction about this; there has been some controversy about it, I know—is that the provisions contained in Clause 28 are more severe than the equivalent provisions of the 1894 Act. Under the Bill, a seaman could be sentenced to two years' imprisonment on conviction. He could be fined a very large sum of money. Under the 1894 Act, however, for similar offences, for the same kind of misdemeanour, according to my reading of the Act, the most excessive penalty was 12 weeks without hard labour. I cannot understand the reason for this but we will let it pass. Let us assume that I am correct in my interpretation of the provisions of the 1894 Act.
To impose a fine of any kind, high or low, on a seaman who happens to be not sober aboard ship, although there can be no charge against him for impeding navigation, causing the destruction of the vessel or interfering with his comrades is, in my judgment, absurd and ridiculous. Such a penalty should not be accepted by hon. Members of this

House, certainly not by hon. Members who are sympathetic to the seamen.
On Second Reading I mentioned that the famous commodore of a famous Atlantic liner said that he could not understand why seamen went to sea sober. Doctor Samuel Johnson made some observations about this a long time ago. He said that a man was better off in gaol than at sea. If he is in gaol, there is no chance of shipwreck. Hon. Members may say that these are irrelevant and out-of-date observations, but no master of any vessel is sufficiently influential, knowledgeable or responsible to impose a fine on a seaman because he happens not to be sober.
Is it a misdemeanour for a seaman when joining a ship in any port of the country to take liquor on board? The Bill does not mention this. No penalty is likely to be imposed for taking alcoholic liquor aboard ship. A seaman may take a couple of bottles of strong spirits on board and while waiting for the ship to sail may have a swig at a bottle and be seen by the second officer who is in charge. Before a ship leaves port very often the master is not available, and it may be the first officer or the second officer who is in charge. The seaman may be told to undertake a particular duty. He may object to doing this or be unable to do it, and we are told that that is disobeying a lawful command. For that offence a penalty may be imposed on him, and a penalty may equally be imposed on him if he happens not to be as sober as the second officer, or someone else on board the ship, requires. This is absurd, and there is no need for it.
I come now to the crux of the problem. Some time ago many of my hon. Friends objected to the provisions which were contained in the document "In Place of Strife". My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Employment and Productivity was associated with what happened then. As a result of representations made to the Government, demonstrations and threats, and because of the attitude of the trade union movement, the Government withdrew the legislation which was proposed in "In Place of Strife". Instead of introducing legislation imposing penalties, the Government decided to


leave the matter to the trade union movement. I do not pretend that what the T.U.C. and the trade unions have done since in relation to industrial strikes, and so on, has been entirely successful. Of course it has not been entirely successful. But the Government did this, and they now introduce similar legislation to that which they withdrew as the result of representations made by the trade union movement. I cannot understand it.
I suggest that the Government should stand by Clause 28. I do not ask that that should be withdrawn. It is not regarded as objectionable by the National Union of Seamen. As for the rest, the Government should rely on regulations. This would be consistent with new Clause 9. Instead of having Clauses which are rigid in character and which imply the imposition of penalties, the Government should draft regulations in consultation with representatives of the men and officers. If that is done, will there be more insubordination aboard ship, more drunkenness? Will there be on board merchant navy vessels men who deliberately and wilfully—and these terms are contained in the Bill—seek to cause the disruption of the vessel on which they sail? Of course not.
I do not know whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are acquainted with the seamen of this country. There was a time when they were a pretty rough lot. I have had occasion to associate with them, and I know what they were like at the beginning of this century, but they are quite different now. This is because shipowners are more enlightened, the men have better accommodation, better mess room, more privacy, higher wages and are better treated. I will go so far as to say that the great majority of the masters of vessels and ships' officers treat the men with whom they sail with the greatest respect. We are not dealing with hooligans or criminals. Occasionally there might be on board ship someone with criminal tendencies, but, generally speaking, men who sail on merchant navy ships are amongst the finest characters to be found in this country. We are not dealing with men who require to be treated in this way—

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is not it just because of the excellent standard amongst our British seamen that they deserve to be protected?

Mr. Shinwell: I have a high regard for my hon. Friend and he knows a great deal about seamen, but I do not understand him. Surely, if the men going to sea in merchant navy vessels are men of good character, and the majority are, they do not require protection. They may require protection occasionally from perhaps a minority of masters of vessels who are inclined to treat the men harshly just because they happen to be boss of the ship. That is what we must guard against.
Despite all the submissions made by hon. Members, I am not prepared to agree to the imposition of penalties which, in my judgment, are irrelevant. I go further, and warn my hon. Friends that, if the Bill goes through in its present form, without concessions, either in the form of Amendments which can be submitted to another place and returned to us in a satisfactory form, or in the form of regulations to replace the existing penal provisions of the Bill, we are in for trouble.
6.0 p.m.
I would remind them that a year or two ago we had a seamen's strike. That strike could have been prevented if we had been sensible and had acted with urgency. But we let the matter drag on and eventually we found ourselves in a situation which almost ruined the economic proposals of the Government. Fortunately we have now escaped from that situation and we must see that we do not return to such a state of affairs.
Reference has been made to the position of the National Union of Seamen. When I came to the House this morning I was told that the seamen who met my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench as well as other hon. Members on this side of the House on the back benches had agreed to the penal provisions. I have made enquiries of the National Union of Seamen and have spoken to the national organiser. He has told me that it is nonsense to say that the seamen have agreed. I do not know who is telling the truth, but I am prepared to accept what has been said by the union.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend saying that National Union of Seamen members had spoken to hon. Members on the Standing Committee. I am not clear what he is saying.

Mr. Shinwell: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. The National Union of Seamen sent representatives to meet some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House before the Bill went into Committee. From what I heard this morning there was an impression that the National Union of Seamen representative had agreed to the penal provisions in the Bill and that therefore the union had no right to complain. There was some bewilderment because it appeared that the union had changed its mind in what it said in the document which is in the hands of some of my hon. Friends. I was informed by the union this morning that it is nonsense to say that it had agreed to all the penal processes in the Bill. It had agreed to Clause 28 and no more. The union had reservations about the fact that what was embodied in Clause 28 seemed to be more severe than what was embodied in the 1894 Act.
I want to read what was said by the National Union of Seamen about the implications of these provisions. Before I do so I wish to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who may have different views from my own, and who perhaps are rather inclined to accept the views of the Chamber of Shipping and the Shipping Federation, not to disregard the views of trade unionists. There is a great deal of talk about the reform of trade unions. There are more than 10 million trade unionists in this country.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I should like to inform the House that I made three separate approaches to the National Union of Seamen to ask them for the benefit of their views and advice on this legislation. For one reason or another the meeting never took place.

Mr. Shinwell: It is a pity that they did not provide the hon. Gentleman with the information which they conveyed to us. I have for a long time had associations with those connected with the Chamber of Shipping and the Shipping Federation. I was not provided with a brief from them, so there should be no complaint from that side of the House.

Mr. Jenkin: In my case I asked for the benefit of advice. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman asked for it.

Mr. Shinwell: I did not require to ask the Chamber of Shipping and the Federation for their views. I know them well enough. They are people of integrity, but for the most part their views are the opposite to ours.
The document issued by the National Union of Seamen says:
As a trade union we must protest most strongly against the concept of criminal sanctions in relation to the regulation of our employment conditions in the latter half of the twentieth century.
I hope that the House will note that phrase "twentieth century". I thought we were now more civilised.
Having served for so long under such sanctions, we are particularly aggrieved to note that the new Bill's disciplinary section is a restatement—in some cases word for word—of the old 19th century Merchant Shipping Act which we seek to replace. … We perceive little attempt at logical analysis or indeed justification for the recommendation by the Pearson Report on the shipping industry to retain the rigours of criminal law for seafaring employment.
A number of hon. Members have relied on the Pearson Report. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench referred frequently in Committee to statements by the Pearson Committee, as if they were like the laws of the Medes and the Persians and therefore should be accepted without criticism. Many Governments have appointed commissions of inquiry and Royal Commissions, but there is no reason why all their recommendations should be accepted. I do not accept, nor do the seamen, the recommendations of the Pearson Committee. That is why I have read to the House part of the submissions set out in the union document, which I hope the Government will note.
The document then refers to the Donovan Committee.
The Donovan Commission, to whom we gave evidence, in its report expressed the view that the general principle for seamen should be to the extent compatible with their calling the same rights as employees ashore.
That is a fair interpretation of what the seamen want and are entitled to. What is good for people who work ashore is equally good for seamen, except that some measure of discipline must be imposed by the Master who is looked up to and respected by members of his crew. One must remember that there is a danger that action might be taken leading to the destruction of the vessel or the


impeding of navigation. Otherwise all these penal sanctions are irrelevant.
Let us trust the seamen. Let us ask them to be responsible, as we know they can be since they are reasonable men. Let us give them a chance. I ask the Government not to take any risks. We took grave risks when we were about to impose legislation which would have affected the trade unions and our industrial relations. Treat the men honourably and they will respect all that the Government and indeed the country expect of them. This is the way to handle the situation. If the Government can deal with this matter by regulations, all the better. If not, they should amend the offending Clauses.

Mr. John Page: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) confused the House in the course of his speech. He seemed to be complaining about the disciplinary powers which a master would exercise on his ship. Those disciplinary powers are contained in Clause 35, to which no Amendments have been tabled. There has been no suggestion about altering the powers of a master to impose a fine of five days' pay or £10. Then again, the right hon. Gentleman complained that the penal Clauses to which he objected would he exercised in the master's cabin. However, that is not the case. As I understand, any penalty will be imposed on a summary conviction in a court at a later stage.
I turn, then, to Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60, which are designed to put another stepping stone between the implementation of the Bill as it stands and the possibility of imposing fines on seamen under Clauses 29, 30 and 31. It is said that the Bill will stand as it is, but that, if we accept the Amendments, it will be necessary for the Board of Trade to make regulations to bring the Clauses into action. That is the object of the Amendments.
When would the situation arise which required such regulations to be made? Obviously, they would be made only when it was felt by the Board of Trade, possibly under pressure from the merchant shipping owners, that a state of indiscipline existed which required regulations to bring the Clauses into action—

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Almost immediately

after the Bill becomes law, it will be the responsibility and duty of the Board of Trade to prepare regulations. I would expect it to consult the representatives of the various organisations on both sides before the regulations were brought to this House. The regulations would be on the basis of agreement between the Government and the various organisations, and they might contain some of the penal provisions. But that would depend on consultation and agreement.

Mr. Page: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's further explanation, but surely now is the time, when these deep, lengthy and careful negotiations are taking place. If the regulations are to be implemented immediately after the Bill becomes law, I cannot see the point of not bringing them in now. My feeling is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite would put pressure upon the Government not to bring in regulations at a later stage. If that is not the case, it seems pointless to have any delay.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is not the position that, while everyone wants the Bill to be passed without delay, there has been a deadlock between the Government and the National Union of Seamen this week? The idea of regulations is that they would provide another opportunity for the Government to reach agreement with the various associations concerned. That is the purpose of the regulations. There is no intention of creating interminable delay.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the point. As I understand it, he is saying that there must be consultations leading to agreement.

Mr. John Mendelson: Yes.

Mr. Page: There have been many occasions when I have complained that the Government consult and then legislate without getting the agreement of all sides. I cannot see any reason why the Government would be more likely to get agreement for putting regulations into force after the Bill is passed than they would now.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the misdemeanours under Clauses 29, 30 and 31 were of a comparatively trivial nature. He spoke of the case of


a seaman going on board drunk and said that he would be dealt with under one of these Clauses. However, that is not the case. Clause 29 says:
If a seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom is, while on duty, under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent that his capacity to carry out his duties is impaired …
That is a very different matter, and the right hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that it says "while on duty".
Clause 30 refers to a seaman who
… wilfully disobeys a lawful command relating or likely to affect the operation of a ship…
That seems to be a fairly serious offence—

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is raising a point with which I did not seek to deal when I introduced the Amendments. If the hon. Gentleman reads the rest of Clause 30, he will see that it refers to a man
… employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom (who) wilfully disobeys a lawful command relating or likely to affect the operation of the ship or its equipment…
If he is employed in the cook's department and refuses to turn the handle on a bacon slicing machine, he is liable to a fine not exceeding £50.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Page: If I may say so, that is a less helpful and less significant interjection than those of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends. Any trivial offence would be dealt with under the master's disciplinary powers contained in Clause 35. I am dealing with a significant and important offence which the master would feel was too serious for him to deal with under his powers.
It is unfortunate that these starred Amendments have been introduced at such a late stage. It seems as if there has been a last-minute crisis of confidence betwen the National Union of Seamen and the Government, between certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government, or between the National Union of Seamen and certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite.
I get the impression that we have gone back in time to last July and " In Place

of Strife". The Under-Secretary, the right hon. Lady's "fall guy", has come to the House yet again to try to pick up the pieces of the right hon. Lady's dynamic, almost detonating period at the Department of Employment and Productivity. The right hon. Lady said that, during the lifetime of the present Government, there would be no industrial relations legislation—including penal clauses.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must come back to the Clause.

Mr. Page: I thought that I was dealing directly with the Clause, Sir.
It seems to me to be an industrial relations matter in which penal sanctions are being employed. However, that was only a small part of my argument. It is significant that it is the Under-Secretary who is having to answer this debate. We shall listen with great interest to what he says so that we can see the line that the Government are taking. I hope that they will take the long-term view and leave the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Albert Booth: The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) are concerned with Clauses 29, 30 and 31 of the Bill as amended in Committee. These Clauses provide penalties for drunkenness, wilful disobedience and neglect of duty. Under them, there can, on summary conviction, be fines of up to £100 for certain offences and up to £50 for others.
These are the middle range of penalties, for there are more serious ones—for example, those coming within Clause 28 dealing with the safety of ships—and less severe penalties for disciplinary offences, which carry a maximum penalty of a £10 fine or one day's pay. It is, therefore, unfair to represent the new Clause as being a proposal designed to sweep away the penal provisions of the Bill.
As a land-based trade unionist, it is repugnant to me that penalties of this kind should apply to people carrying out their trades and professions and trying to earn a living. I do not like the idea of a man being fined or sent to prison for something which happens as a result of his employment. For this reason, many of my hon. Friends would prefer not to


have penal provisions in the Bill. However, we appreciate the need to accept the reality of the situation.
In Committee, we considered the necessity of having an effective trade union defence for anybody coming within these penal provisions. While it is not easy to ensure that such an effective trade union defence will be available to a man serving on a ship which might be 1,000 miles from its home port, we had to ensure that a captain cannot decide on the spot that a man should be fined £100, or be sent to prison. The alleged offender must come ashore for trial and I have no doubt that the N.U.S. will see that its members are not wrongly accused. Although these penal provisions are repugnant to many of us, they have that virtue.
Under Clauses 35 and 37—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill or all the penal clauses. We are discussing a new Clause which makes a certain way of dealing with offences under Clauses 29, 30 and 31.

Mr. Booth: The offences covered by the Amendments which we are discussing with the new Clause relate to drunkenness, wilful disobedience and neglect of duty. The Minister would be required to make regulations which would have to come before the House for approval. This would allow a considerable amount of flexibility. First, time limits could be imposed on the various penalties, which could be reviewed from time to time by the House. Secondly, the regulations could distinguish between vessels and types of vessel, and this would be desirable. However, the Amendments would not remove those offences, desirable though that might be. They would merely make them subject to regulations.

Mr. Heffer: Is not my hon. Friend aware that on Report one cannot table Amendments to delete certain provisions of the Bill? That is my understanding of the procedure.

Mr. Booth: I think that it is in order to debate these matters on Report on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Clause stand part debate on Report except on a new Clause.

Mr. Booth: I think that I am in order at this stage in discussing the rightness or wrongness of the penalties as they could be applied through the regulations referred to in the Amendments which we are discussing with the new Clause.
It is important to consider the views of the N.U.S. on this issue. The union states:
There are some aspects of the Bill which do not fully meet our demands. We are prepared to accept them within the totality of the Bill, which is the result of compromises between conflicting interests. But Clauses 29, 30, 31 and 32 are totally unacceptable both in concept and in the interpretation given to them in the course of the debates in the Standing Committee of the Bill. They are totally unacceptable to us as trade unionists and completely contrary to the agreement reached by the T.U.C. and the Government recently in regard to industrial relations.
The point of view of the N.U.S. is, therefore, completely clear on this matter. The new Clause and the Amendments do not completely represent the views of the N.U.S., although I do not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North for that, because he has sought to compromise between the N.U.S. and the position adopted in the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: I trust that my hon. Friend will point out that we have done the best that we could in the circumstances?

Mr. John Mendelson: We have not tried to compromise between the two positions, but to do what could be done under the procedure of the House.

Mr. Booth: Perhaps I should not have used the word "compromise". My hon. Friends who support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North seek to achieve the best possible position that is available to them. What is unfortunate is that, so far, my hon. Friends have not shown the House—though this may be put right within the next 10 minutes or so—how they envisage the regulations being so framed as to remove the offensive nature of the penalties. If the intention is that those regulations should lapse very quickly and that the penalties should disappear, we will be left with a situation in which there are more serious and less serious penalties, while the penalties now under discussion would have disappeared. But if they envisage that it is possible within those regulations to set up a new


sort of procedure to deal with what was previously covered by these Clauses, it would be very useful.
The debate may have given an unfortunate impression that the Government, as represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, were in some way hostile to trade union representations made in Committee. Such an impression would be absolutely contrary to fact. I found my right hon. Friend most willing to listen, and most helpful in his response to any trade union point of view put to him. That fact should be put on record.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Horner: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) in his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade. We have had references to "In Place of Strife", and the suggestion has been made that, somehow or other, these offensive Clauses are a hang-over from those previous considerations. We have also been told that the Pearson Report is not to be considered as being like the law of the Medes and Persians, and that there may appear to have been some confusion about the attitude of the N.U.S. to this matter.
I read the monthly journal of the N.U.S., and in the January number, after the Second Reading debate had taken place, the general secretary wrote:
With the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill out of the way, it can truly be said that we are witnessing the last days of the old régime.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate on Second Reading or on Third Reading. We are discussing a new Clause which proposes that the penal Clauses 29, 30, and 31 should be governed by some kind of regulation.

Mr. Horner: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. My intention was to try to show how it could come about that staunch opponents in the Standing Committee of "In Place of Strife" could now seek to defend the position of the Minister of State.
Some hon. Members have referred to an N.U.S. document, with which all of us have been supplied, which makes it clear that the union is absolutely and

without qualification opposed to these penal Clauses. Members of the Standing Committee must make their position clear. The official of the N.U.S. whose signature is appended to the letter accompanying the document, wrote in last month's executive council report of the union:
The Bill is not all we want. It must be remembered, however, that we have accepted the Pearson Report as a whole, including its recommendations about the new Bill now under discussion.
Those words follow references to the offending Clauses.
As one who wants to resolve this issue, and who is desperately anxious that the Bill should be launched with the maximum of good will, I believe that we should be extremely careful to draw on the experience of the past and not to mince our words. We should not just give an idle blessing to the Bill and hope for the best. If there is danger of a major conflict between the N.U.S. and the Government at this last-minute stage, members of Standing Committee A are to a very large degree obliged to say where they stand, and must try to set out clearly how it is that the House is now in this somewhat critical position. I say no more about that aspect. The position has been made plain, and I leave it there.
There are four Clauses to which objection is now taken. They take the place of 18 Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. I do not want to weary the House with details of how the penalty for a misdemeanour may be two years or, on summary conviction, 12 weeks, depending on how the offence is reported and the proceedings instituted, but the fact that should be recorded is that, however objectionable these Clauses may appear to the N.U.S., they are a universe away from the penalties of the 1894 Act.
I have tried to follow the mechanisms of the inter-related new Clause and the Amendments. There is in them much that attracts those of us who are seeking a means of bridging the gulf which appears to have yawned between the N.U.S. and the Government. But I want clarification. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness has pointed out that acceptance of the new Clause and the Amendments would not remove the essential character of facts that are obnoxious to the N.U.S. What is envisaged? Is it envisaged that, following


on the enactment of the Bill, the Board of Trade shall forthwith prepare regulations which, at their best, embody the offending Clauses?
That means that if, during subsequent developments in the industry, it is found undesirable or not necessary for such regulations to continue, they can easily be disposed of. Or is it proposed that there shall be no regulations and the experience of the industry over the next few months or a year or two shall determine whether the Board of Trade shall make regulations?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 35 he will find that it is all there concerning regulations about matters relating to discipline. All that the Board of Trade has to do is to engage in discussions with organisations such as the National Union of Seamen to obtain the kind of interpretation which, in their opinion, is acceptable. That can be done by discussion. It may be that embodied in regulations after consultation some of the disciplinary provisions will remain.

Mr. Horner: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. In Standing Committee, a great deal was said about multiple remedies and about choices open to employers and masters of ships to use various remedies, including the remedies to which objection is being taken tonight.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend asked a question which I think he was entitled to ask. If he reads them carefully he will find that Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 say:
at the beginning insert 'The Board of Trade may make regulations that'".
Then would follow the three Clauses as they stand. If the Amendments were accepted there would be no regulations at the moment, but regulations could be made and they would have to come before the House for agreement before they were put into operation.

Mr. Horner: I am very grateful for that further explanation. It seems that what the House is being asked to agree is that from the passing of the Bill there should be only two remedies open to the employer or the master. There may be a third. It has been argued most cogently that that third remedy is now necessary.
Much has been made about drunken seamen. I do not want to belabour that point. I can envisage a position where the offence of drunkenness comes under the third remedy of the master's powers and might not be regarded as appropriate to be dealt with by that remedy. I can conceive of a situation whereby it could be dealt with by the "steam hammer" Clause of the Bill. A man, or a whole crew, may come aboard on a Saturday night and be drunk. Jolly good luck to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate this dramatic interlude to the new Clause, which suggests that the three offences he is dealing with should be dealt with by a set of rules and regulations by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Horner: I was about to take the House through a glorious Saturday night, but you checked me, Mr. Speaker.
A position could arise in which the offence of drunkenness referred to in the Clause was of such a kind that the master felt obliged to use the power in the Clause and not the power vested in him as master, nor the power in what I call the "steam hammer" Clause. When a ship is in dangerous narrow waters the master might feel obliged to advise members of the crew who have previously offended that if that offence were repeated in the waters into which the ship was about to be navigated he would seek to exercise powers under this objectionable Clause.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding. Clause 37, which still has to be debated, contains a provision for the creation of ships' disciplinary committees which can deal with these offences. Read the Clause; it is all there. We need not give the master power to do it ad lib.

Mr. Horner: I am seeking to obey your injunction Mr. Speaker. I shall not wander too widely, but I must be allowed to make my point.
A crew has gone ashore and then comes aboard and is the worse for drink. No one is worried, but the master sees that the ship is approaching dangerous navigational straits. The powers of the master are irrelevant. He may have dealt earlier with cases of drunkenness under those


powers, but he is now obliged to fall back on the powers provided by Clause 29.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Clause 29. We are discussing whether we apply it by the procedural method set out by the Amendments on the Notice Paper.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. May I plead with you, Mr. Speaker? We have heard of underlying ideas in the Standing Committee. It is crucial to identify how decisions were made against the background of these four Clauses which are objected to by the National Union of Seamen. Surely it ought to be relevant for hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee to inform the House about the underlying ideas of that time.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, so long as they have a bearing. It is quite clear that these three Clauses are objected to. Hon. Members have put down a new Clause to seek to control the effect of these Clauses by dealing with the offences by Regulations. That is what we are discussing.

Mr. Horner: The new Clause and the related Amendments will produce a hiatus. There will be a position in which only two remedies will exist. That view is shared by the National Union of Seamen and many of my hon. Friends. The supporters of the new Clause, however, do not see that hiatus continuing permanently. They wish to draw on the experience of the industry. I am with them on that. With the long experience of 70 years of the old Merchant Shipping Act behind us, we should design a provision which can be adapted to the experience, the growth and change in industrial relations in this industry. To that extent there is much merit in the pro-position. I hope that serious consideration will be given to it by my right hon. Friend.
I sought to find what was the recent experience of the provisions of the 1894 Act. I asked the President of the Board of Trade how many merchant seamen during the last five years had been caught under the much wider provisions of the present legislation. No one could tell me, not even the National Union of Seamen. Therefore, it may be that those

who have warned us about tying ourselves too closely to past experience have uttered words of wisdom.
However, the proposition set out in the new Clause has merit and should receive sympathetic consideration from the Government. Not merely the master and the owners, but the trade union which is raising this objection should not be forced into a worse position than it aft present foresees.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldsbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) has said. I do not object to these issues being raised. After all, this is the place where matters of such importance should be discussed. It is unfortunate that they have been brought forward at such a late stage, perhaps. However, we must seek to clear them up.
I am all the more concerned because in Committee I sought the views of my right hon. Friend about the possibility of some further withdrawal of certain classes of ship from these disciplinary provisions. We discussed the possibility of withdrawing ships on coastwise trade, middle shipping, and certain types of ferries. The ground for that discussion was the way in which we could bring our procedures at sea as close as possible to our procedures on land. This was a desire common to members of the Committee and to the Government.
There are some occupations on land that have special provisions which are to some extent comparable—for example, the pits and the railways. Some members of the Committee were anxious, lest, in properly seeking to examine the circumstances in which these Clauses could be applied for disciplinary purposes, we encouraged the wider use of the sledgehammer Clause. Therefore, many of us, on that ground, and also on the ground of the extreme difficulty of attempting to define any category of ship that could be excluded from these Clauses, had unwillingly to accept my right hon. Friend's arguments, although the matter was left in the setting that my right hon. Friend was prepared to give further consideration to the question of redefining the categories of coastwise or home-trade ships which might be caught by the disciplinary Clauses.
I see no better hope in the new Clause of achieving such a definition that would separate certain categories of shipping from other categories that have already been examined. We have taken fishing fleets out of the disciplinary Clauses, because they can be separately regarded and come under a completely separate code of conduct. It is difficult to find a way of securing this isolation of separate categories which the Clause would provide powers to achieve if it were practicable. Therefore, I cannot believe that there is any greater hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) achieving success than the Standing Committee had, when our attempts were answered in some detail by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. John Golding: The Bill will apply to cable ships. This disappoints me. The matters provided for in Clauses 29 to 31 should be dealt with by regulation, because of the opposition that to there being penal Clauses in the Bill. The advantage of dealing with these matters by regulation would be that the exceptions could be more easily dealt with.
I would point out some absurdities which could arise under these Clauses. On Clause 30, Post Office engineers who refuse at present to lay cable between Winchester and Southampton cannot be brought before a court. However, if they refuse to lay cable between Southampton and Cherbourg, they are liable to be brought before a criminal court. This is wrong.
Post Office engineers who refused to maintain the Division bells in the House could not be taken before a criminal court, despite the inconvience that it might cause. If they persistently refused to polish the bell on one of Her Majesty's telegraph ships, under this Clause they could he brought before a criminal court. This shows the absurdity of the blanket provision in Clauses 30 and 31.
On Clause 29, any seaman who is drunk on duty is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50. This might be reasonable in the case of a man working in the engine room, on the deck, or on the bridge. It is not reasonable to bring before a criminal court a man who is drunk whilst acting as cook or steward.

Clauses 29 to 31 can be applied in absurd circumstances because of their blanket nature. It would be far better for these matters to be dealt with in regulations, because the regulations would be subject to negotiation; the Minister would consult both sides of the industry, which would be able to point out to him what was reasonable and what was not reasonable.

Mr. Simon Mahon: A man who cannot do his job in the stokehold because of drunkenness, or a man who cannot steer a ship because of drunkenness, should certainly be disciplined. Cannot my hon. Friend see, though, what would happen if it was sought to discriminate between a man in the engine room and a man on the deck, on the one hand, and a steward, on the other, giving the steward carte blanche, so to speak? Is this what my hon. Friend is advocating?

Mr. Golding: The men on board would accept this. In industry, men apply common sense to practical situations.
Of course, the men would smile if they saw a steward coming to them in a state of inebriation. They would say, "Joe is drunk again" and would not suggest that there be great penalties applied to that man. But if they say that a man on the bridge or in the engine room, doing a job in which safety was involved, was drunk, they would be prepared through their own disciplinary committees to apply sanctions. The men have sense and logic of their own and they would be prepared, and are prepared, to accept penalties when they are applied to men who are putting other men's life and limb at hazard. What the men cannot accept is the differentiation that there is in the Bill between acts which are done at sea and those which are done in industrial premises on shore.
The debate on this matter in Committee was a long one. I echo the sentiment that the Minister listened patiently and quietly to our arguments, and made many concessions in Committee. But I hope that he will think again, giving the same careful consideration as he gave to other points in Committee to the possibility of removing Clauses 29, 30 and 31 from the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I have listened carefully to the


debate as I did to the earlier debates in Committee on this subject and I hope that the Minister will resist the new Clause and the Amendments. I particularly admired the speech made by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Homer) who, unfortunately, appears to have left the Chamber. But it is clear from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that the reason for this last-minute proposal springs from the dislike which the National Union of Seamen has for any form of disciplinary Clause.
The right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) did himself less than justice. I have always looked up him as being a fair-minded and reasonable Member, but when he spoke of hon. Members on this side as representing only the shipowners and the masters, and hon. Members on his side as representing the seamen he was being less than fair to hon. Members on both sides.
I have had representations from both sides, and I have far more seamen among my constituents than I have masters. Were it not for the late notice of the Amendments I should have had time to discuss the question with both sides. I took their views both before and during the Committee stage and I feel that it would be wrong for hon. Members to act as spokesmen for either side. We are not in this House the mouthpiece either of the National Union of Seamen or the Chamber of Shipping. Our duty is to listen to both sides and to attempt to legislate what is best in the national interest.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that if the National Union of Seamen had not raised a peep on this matter I should have put down Amendments rather similar to those we are discussing.

Mr. McMaster: From the interventions made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) during the debate I can see quite clearly why he would like to go even beyond the precise words of the Amendments. But I am dealing with the Amendments as drafted. I can see that he would like the regulations to be laid before the House so that he could perhaps object to them. The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. Any type of discipline is anathema to him.

Mr. Heffer: Rubbish!

Mr. McMaster: I agree that in the best of all possible worlds no one likes the criminal law or the idea of punishment. But it is the duty of the House to protect the interests not only of the seamen, but of all others—and here I am thinking not just of the shipowners or the officers, but seamen and others who might be injured as a result of any of the defaults set out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must now come to the new Clause, which suggests a way of dealing procedurally with the three Clauses 29, 30 and 31.

Mr. McMaster: I was just about to come to the offences set out in Clauses 29, 30 and 31.
I refer, first to Clause 31, which says:
If a seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom—

(a) persistently and wilfully neglects his duty; or
(b) persistently and wilfully disobeys lawful commands; or
(c) combines with other seamen employed in that ship to disobey lawful commands; or to neglect duty or to impede the navigation of the ship or the progress of a voyage;"

That is an act which could affect not only the seamen themselves, but the passengers and other innocent third persons. A fault in the navigation could lead to a collision and damage or injury. These are serious matters. As I say, one would like to think that in the best of all possible worlds there will be no deliberate action or unfortunate lapses of this kind. But we must be realistic. Sometimes, either out of negligence or recklessness or deliberate spite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to Clauses 29, 30 and 31. What we are discussing is whether we deal with the items mentioned in those three Clauses by way of the Board of Trade setting down regulations.

Mr. McMaster: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I shall bring myself immediately to the point.
I have been trying to point out that the new Schedule which is a gravamen of the matter is an attempt to reduce the effectiveness of the penalties in respect of a breach of one of those provisions set


out in Clauses 29, 30 and 31. What I am attempting to argue is that the Minister should resist these proposals because any such interference or reduction of penalties would be wrong. I do not think that it has been denied that the real aim of those who have introduced these Amendments is to get rid of the disciplinary Clauses.
As there has been—this has come out during the debate—a package deal between the Government, the National Union of Seamen and the Chamber of Shipping, provisions have been included in the Bill which are not popular with the Chamber of Shipping and others which are not popular, perhaps, with the union. But they have all been drafted in the best interests of the shipping industry as a whole.
To go back on that at the last moment would be totally wrong. It would be wrong for the House to accept the argument now that, because one side does not agree with the provisions set out, the package deal should be set aside. All hon. Members have a duty to listen to both sides of the argument, to consider what is best in the interests of all the people concerned and the national interest, and, balancing these considerations, to legislate in a way which is in the public interest as a whole.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) introduced an unworthy note into the debate by alleging that the National Union of Seamen is unconcerned with discipline. That has been no part of the debate up to now, and such allegations have not been made from either side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) spoke of the integrity of the people who run ships and who own ships—that has been the general tone of the discussion—and I hope that all hon. Members equally accept the integrity of the leaders of the National Union of Seamen. They are very much concerned with safety and with discipline. They have accepted one of the Clauses to which reference has been made in this connection, and they have given evidence time and again of their attitude on these matters.
I have two points only to put to the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington put on record

earlier that, when the representatives of the National Union of Seamen came to see hon. Members on this side before the Committee stage started and they saw the Clauses which we now seek to amend, they expressed their opposition to that way of dealing with penalties. That is a cardinal fact to be borne in mind, and a fact of considerable importance in the light, particularly, of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
This is a great Measure of reform. My right hon and hon. Friends know how all of us on this side have urged the Government over recent years to bring in the Bill and to go ahead with it. It is a Measure which has been regarded by seafaring people as a great advance and a great reform. Would it not be a tragedy, now that a disagreement has arisen, if we were to pass this important Measure in a way which rankled with those most directly concerned with it?
If my right hon. Friend could accept the method suggested by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), or find some other method by which agreement could be reached with representatives of the union, he would do well for everyone concerned.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: We have had a fairly long debate, and I shall try not to detain the House much longer. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) introduced his new Clause and the Amendments with moderation, and he anticipated many of the objections. Some of the subsequent speeches have, perhaps, been a little less moderate. I must at the outset point out that notice of the matter was very short. The Amendments appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning as starred Amendments—the hon. Gentleman recognised that—so that the whole House is in some difficulty in considering them.
The Bill should be considered as a whole—that is how we approached it in Committee—but we are now asked to make drastic changes at a very late stage. As a whole, the Bill has been much commended from many quarters. Even the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) called it a


tremendous advance. In September, writing in the Seaman, Mr. Hogarth himself described it as a crossroads of history. It would be a pity if anything were done at this late stage to upset the balance of the Bill. Both sides have recognised how important it is to the industry as a whole that all should work together so that real advance can be made.
I come now to the effect of the proposed changes. At first sight, the idea of having different rules for different ships is attractive, but it would be difficult to distinguish between one and another. The idea of having an affirmative Resolution for the regulations has some attraction as well, but, faced with the fact that Clauses 29. 30 and 31 will remain in the Bill, subject only to regulations, we must ask what the effect would be. We cannot really tell. Either the regulations would be much the same as the wording of the Bill or they would be something less, and I imagine that those who advocate the new Clause and the Amendments are really after that. But what will they be, and who is to determine them? It means starting again from scratch in an attempt to find a general balance between all the interests concerned.
7.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) was right to point out that safety at sea is paramount. Even if the Amendments, or something like them, were accepted, there would still be Clause 28, which has been referred to as a sledgehammer, and the captain would be compelled to look to that severe Clause in default of the other provisions. Moreover, we should not forget, in considering the question of these Clauses and lesser penalities, that there is a great turnover of seamen today. Lord Pearson discussed this in his report.
Clause 28 is a severe Clause. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, the penalties are more severe than some of those which went before, but I notice that under the new Clause the penalties under Clauses 29 and 30 would be raised from £50 to £100. Perhaps hon. Members think that that would be ironed out in some way by the regulations.
We had considerable debate in Committee on Clause 29, which deals with drunkenness, and it was then observed that the July Bill had further provisions, dealing with being asleep and with leaving one's post, which disappeared between the July Bill and our taking this Bill in Committee, so already the penal provisions have been eroded to a considerable extent, which, I think, did not please all sides of the industry.
Rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—the Bill has been regarded as something of a package deal. This was said on several occasions in Committee, and I think that the Minister of State agreed. In paragraph 311 and elsewhere in his report, Lord Pearson dealt at length with all the points which have been discussed, pointing out in regard to possible duplication of powers and the need for penal Clauses as well as ordinary disciplinary powers that the master might wish to deal with most cases himself and that those he would not wish to deal with would be only those hard cases which, as has already been said, would arise but seldom. In fact, these Clauses would be something of a long-stop which one would not expect to see often used.
In this connection, one should bear in mind the complication introduced by the ships' disciplinary committees. In some cases, they would deal with the ordinary functions of the master in disciplinary matters. This is a very late stage at which to destroy the balance of agreement which has marked the passage of the Bill thus far.

Mr. Shinwell: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 37. Everyone agreed that there should be a ship's disciplinary committee, consisting of the master, officers and men, to deal with matters of discipline. In view of that, was it necessary to have a disciplinary Clause dealing with a man who got drunk aboard ship? Could that not be dealt with by the ship's committee?

Mr. Digby: We discussed the disciplinary committees in some detail in Committee, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity to discuss them again later. I do not think that they cover the entire point. Certainly, in the view of Lord Pearson they did not.
I wonder whether the National Union of Seamen, which I suppose is behind the


latest suggestion, feels that it can carry with it the masters, the officers and the federation. I wonder whether there has been any attempt to carry on the kind of consultations that there have been up to now between the various branches of the industry. I do not believe for a moment that there has. I do not think that the case has been made out for these rather radical suggestions at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill, and I therefore hope that the Government will resist the Amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): We have had a rather lengthy debate, but it has been splendid. It has reflected the very real understanding of, and genuine concern for, the industry by hon. Members on this side of the House, and their understanding of working-class conditions.
The Amendments relate to the statutory offences in Clause 29, 30 and 31 about seamen being under the influence of drink and drugs while on duty, disobedience and persistent neglect of duty, and so on. The proposals before the House would have the effect that the offences could be brought into effect, separately or as a whole, only by regulations, and might then be applied to different descriptions of vessels or in different circumstances.
It is inevitable that we have heard a great deal about the effect of the Clauses which hon. Members seek to amend. I do not want to add to that discussion, because we dealt with the matter adequately in Committee on the separate Clauses, but I wish to make a general comment about the modifications to the Bill which have been welcomed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who said how much he appreciated the changes and the readiness with which my right hon. Friend had responded to views put to him. This appreciation was echoed by other hon. Members.
There were not only modifications to the Bill in Committee. There were very substantial changes between the July version and the October version, and I do not think that we have made any secret of the fact that by and large the substantial and fundamental changes were made

in response to our consultations with the industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that he had been misled by talk of there apparently being a consensus of agreement about the contents of the Bill. I was a party to all the consultations we had. Indeed, by and large I led the consultations for the Government between the July Bill and the October Bill. I have before me a copy of the Bill as then drafted which I had on each of those occasions, and it bears some words I wrote down then. My right hon. Friend, who has no doubt led many such consultations, will himself have jotted down a few words to trigger off thoughts in his mind when introducing the consultations.
I have here the words with which I introduced each of the discussions with the representatives from different sections of the industry. I told them that the Bill as drafted, whilst seeking to follow Pearson, represented the highest common denominator of agreement or reconcilability between the interests directly affected. I cannot recall those words ever being challenged.
It is certainly true that the National Union of Seamen expressed its reservations about the Clauses which it is sought to amend. At the same time, I do not think that I misrepresent its position when I say that it accepted that there had to be compromise if we were to make progress in the reform of the Merchant Shipping Acts.
I think that in my own defence I am entitled to refer to the letter of my hon. Friend the then Minister of State at the Board of Trade on 25th August in which the N.U.S. set out step-by-step, in detail, its points of objection. It made no general objection then. I am not saying that it did not have, and does not now have, objections. I could go through it section by section. It might not gratify hon. Members opposite if I told them of point after point where we have met the N.U.S. It is also true that we sought to meet some of the other points expressed by other sections of the industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington seemed to find some ground at least for criticism that I should so frequently have quoted in the Standing Committee from the Pearson Report.


Under the circumstances, it would have been even more astonishing if I had not done so. I would have been rebuked if I had not made frequent reference to Pearson.
My connection with the Bill began after it had been launched. Its origins go back to the national seamen's strike of 1966, one result of which was the appointment of the court of inquiry under Lord Pearson. From the moment of the publication of the report three years ago in February, 1967, a report which was almost universally accepted, the Government were under continuous pressure from my hon. Friends—and I think from my right hon. Friend as well—to implement its recommendations. Over that long period I cannot recall any hon. Member saying that the Government should implement its recommendations "except in so far as".

Mr. Shinwell: Here I must intervene, because we had better get the record right. When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade assumed his present office he spoke to me about the provisions of a merchant shipping Bill. He was very kind to do so. I warned him then to be very careful about the matter of discipline. I have maintained my position ever since.

Mr. Walker: I hope that my right hon. Friend did not think that I was misrepresenting him. I was in no way implying that his very vigorous and clear speech this afternoon represented any tergiversation on his part. I use a word used by a former distinguished Prime Minister.

Mr. Heffer: What does it mean?

Mr. Walker: It means forsaking the cause.
I think that we are all agreed—the debate has reflected our agreement—on the need to maintain discipline at sea. I think that we all accept that it is vital for the safety and efficiency of the merchant fleet. This matter was gone into very fully by the court of inquiry, which made it clear that the provision of these statutory offences is fundamental to the intention and philosophy of the report. The inquiry heard the views of all sides of the industry and made firm recommendations for these provisions. I doubt

whether, in those circumstances, provisions of this kind for the merchant navy should be left to regulations. It is my view and that of the Government that they should be set out in the Statute and applied universally to all merchant ships.
There is nothing unique in statutory disciplinary provisions where, for example, safety is concerned. I note that one or two of my hon. Friends with close connections with the coal mining industry are present, and they will know what I am talking about.
A key point made by my hon. Friends was that the Pearson Report recognised that there are other ways of maintaining discipline, and the statutory offences are part of a pattern in which shipboard and shore disciplinary procedures will play their part. Acts of misconduct on board ship will generally be dealt with by the master or a ship's committee, and general misconduct will continue to be reviewed and dealt with by joint committees ashore. We believe that all these developments must be encouraged and that they will be able to deal with most, if not all, cases of indiscipline, but we feel that there is need for all these methods to be available.
7.30 p.m.
In the public interest, safety at sea requires that there shall be statutory offences which can enable the more serious cases to be dealt with. Such cases cannot be dealt with by, for example, a ship's disciplinary committee or a shore-based committee or shore-based procedure or by the ship's master. Not all such cases can be dealt with under Clause 28, which has been rightly described as a sledgehammer which may be used wrongly in certain circumstances if we have no other instrument available. It is these less dangerous but still serious acts of misconduct which, in the last resort, should be capable of being dealt with as statutory offences.
This runs parallel with the situation in most other countries. It is my understanding that, when the Bill has been enacted, our provisions will probably be more liberal than those of almost any other country, and certainly less rigorous.

Mr. Shinwell: We agree about that.

Mr. Walker: I want now to turn to the point, raised by a number of hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the


Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), about the possibility of differentiating between different classes of ships. The difficulty here has been referred to in the debate—for example, in respect of vessels in home waters, which is the class of vessel for which my hon. Friend sought in particular to seek exemption. These involve voyages through the most congested waters in the world where collision dangers are high and where there is need for all possible safety provision. I cannot see where a line could safely be drawn either between ship and ship or between areas of trading or between one offence and another in relation to such ships.
I assure my hon. Friends that I understand very clearly their aims in deploying the new Clause and the Amendments that go with it. In effect, they have made their play and have expressed their opposition about the content of these Clauses, but, for good or ill, they have lost the battle. Nevertheless, while they accept the Government's case for the necessity of these Clauses in present circumstances and the Government's case for the development of ships' disciplinary committees, which they welcome, they suggest that, if these committees prove as effective as we all hope, the need for the statutory provisions will diminish in time.
They therefore ask, "Are we to wait for another three-quarters of a century for another amending Act before we can get rid of these statutory offences which, by their existence, are a daily provocation?" That, by and large, is the argument of my hon. Friends. They say, "Should we not make provision in the Bill for the Government, if these other developments are as successful as we all hope, to vary or revoke the statutory provisions in the Bill?"
I believe that I, and perhaps more particularly some of the other hon. Members who have spoken, have given adequate and compelling reasons why the provisions in relation to statutory offences should be retained, at least in present circumstances. The need for them was spelt out clearly and firmly in the Pearson Report. The Pearson Committee, on which trade union interests were strongly represented, made the recommendations from which these Clauses are derived. Those recommendations have been discussed between the interests

within the industry and between those interests and the Government.
The same has applied throughout the Bill as a whole. No powerful dissent from the provisions of these so-called penal Clauses was apparent on those occasions. Surely this is a very late point in the passage of the Bill to be asked to contemplate a radical variation of these provisions.
Nevertheless, in spite of what I have said, I feel reluctant wholly to reject the proposition advanced by my hon. Friends. I cannot ignore the powerful arguments which have been deployed by them. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are anxious that we should as far as possible carry with us in the purposes of the Bill those to whom it will directly apply. While we cannot accept the new Clause and the allied Amendments, we are prepared to ask the industry for its views about the flexibility and efficacy of making such a provision as will proceed along the lines suggested by my hon. Friends.
Furthermore, the industry itself has its own permanent forum, the National Maritime Board, and I see no reason why those within the industry who seek this kind of change should not initiate early discussions within that body towards the end my hon. Friends seek. If, subsequently, some consensus of agreement emerges from that body seeking changes along the lines proposed, the Government will feel bound to give it serious and urgent consideration. I assure my hon. Friends that, if the industry itself gives a clear indication of its wish and willingness to go along such lines, we will be ready and happy to go along with it.
I hope that, in the light of these assurances, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will feel able to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. McNamara: I repeat my apology for the lateness of this new Clause and the Amendments. I think that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) understands the circumstances. They were framed specifically to allow for consultation with the interests he mentioned and, on reflection, he will remember that this is what I pointed out in my speech earlier. It is important to get this point on the record.
Having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I have no wish to detain the House long. What he has proposed is generous. I only regret that, in other ways and other circumstances, perhaps things could not have been different, and I make that clear to some hon. Members who have made such comment. My hon. Friend rightly spoke about the negotiations he had had and referred to the Pearson Committee and the Donovan Committee and to the discussions on "In Place of Strife". I remind him that the National Union of Seamen has been on record all the time as being against these penal Clauses.
There has been criticism to some extent of the N.U.S. by some of my hon. Friends about the receipt of information. The delay in the last piece of information they received was due to one factor—that it was felt that it would be improper to issue a statement like that while negotiations or discussions were still going on. I believe this to have been a right and proper attitude and I must admit that it was on my advice that the decision was taken.
Having said that, and having, I hope, cleared away some of the misunderstanding, in view of the generous statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and knowing the attention which he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have paid to many of the points we have made in the debate—a point I made in my earlier speech—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS RELATING TO MERCHANT SHIPS ANDSEAMEN

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page1, leave outlines 5 to 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House with this also to discuss Government Amendment No. 52.

Mr. Roberts: This is a drafting Amendment. The issue was raised by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in Committee. I could go through the reasons for doing it this way, but I will not do so unless that is required. I hope that the Amendment commends itself to the House.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is not often that one gets twice as much as one asked for. I proposed to remove half the Clause; the right hon. Gentleman has gone the whole way and taken out the whole Clause. I think on reflection that that is the right answer, and we are happy to agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

REGULATIONS RELATING TO CREW GREEMENTS

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line10, after 'them', insert:
'and requiring copies of or extracts from documents referred to in crew agreements to be made available, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, for inspection by members of the crew'.
In our discussions in Committee, we agreed that it was most desirable that seamen should have reasonable access to documents referred to in crew agreements. I agreed to consider further how best this result could be achieved. I have carefully considered the helpful comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and those of the hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford, for which I am particularly grateful. I think that we should take power to ensure that this point can be covered in the regulations.
As hon. Members suggested in Committee, it may not be necessary for the documents to be carried in the ship—may not be; I am not being dogmatic about this—and the circumstances may be limited to providing for them to be available ashore. This will depend on the nature of the documents and the circumstances within the industry. We shall


discuss these matters with the shipping and fishing industries before regulations are drafted and I hope to have their guidance as to what is feasible in each case. For these reasons, we are not seeking to lay down in the Statute the circumstances in which the documents should be available, but we leave this to regulations to be made after consultation with the industry.
I hope, too, that the number of documents referred to in crew agreements will be reduced to a minimum so that the crew agreement itself is largely self-contained. We shall watch this in giving approval to the various kinds of crew agreement. I hope that the Amendment meets the doubts which have been expressed, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Page: I was interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman is to have further discussions about the form of the document with the interested parties. I wonder whether I may slip in a quick one and ask whether it would be possible for copies of the official log book also to be considered as part of the documents which might be made available to individuals and to certain parties outside and perhaps considered in the same grouping.

Mr. Roberts: I expect that when the discussions leading up to these regulations are proceeding, that point, among others, will be considered by both sides of the industry and by us.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We are again much obliged to the Government for having brought forward an Amendment which entirely meets the case which we put in Committee. We had particularly in mind the Year Book of the National Maritime Board which contains the details of most of the agreements with which seamen are concerned. It is extremely important that this should be available at the time they sign their crew agreement, so that they may see what it is that is being incorporated in the agreement which they are signing. The Amendment meets that point completely and we are grateful to the Minister for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

DISCHARGE OF SEAMEN

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 23, leave out from beginning to second 'to' in line 24 and insert:
'requiring notice of such a discharge to be given at such time as may be specified in the regulations'
In Committee, there was a general feeling that we should look again at the Clause to ensure that the Regulations should deal with the question of when notice of discharge should be given. I have studied the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee discussions, particularly the comments of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), and the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
While I think that the present version of the Clause is adequate to enable the time of discharge to be covered, I think that we can frame the drafting to make the point clearer and more explicit, and that is what the Amendment does. I hope that it meets the wishes of hon. Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

PAYMENT OF SEAMEN'S WAGES

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 41 and insert:
Except as provided by or under this Act or any other enactment.
It was decided to clarify the drafting of subsection (1) so that the stipulation that wages shall be paid in full is subject to anything provided for by or in the Bill or any other enactment. It will thus cover any regulations and not only those provided for in Clause 10.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My only comment is that this is exactly the point we made. Again, we express our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 in page 5, line 2, leave out from discharge ' to end of line 4.

(2) If the amount shown in the account delivered to a seaman under section 9(1) of this Act as being the amount payable to him under subsection (1) of this section is replaced by an increased amount shown in a further account delivered to him under section 9(3) of this Act, the balance shall be paid to him within seven days of the time of his discharge; and if the amount so shown in the account delivered to him under section 9(1) of this Act exceeds £50 and it is not practicable to pay the whole of it at the time of discharge, not less than £50 nor less than one-quarter of the amount so shown shall be paid to him at that time and the balance within seven days of that time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected sub-Amendment (a) for a Division if necessary; that is, in line 6, leave out '£50' and insert '£30'. The other three sub-Amendments may also be discussed with this Amendment. They are, (b), in line 7, leave out '£50' and insert '£30' (c), in line 7, leave out from '£50' to end; and (d), in line 8, at end insert:
(3) The Board of Trade may by regulations increase the sum of £30 mentioned in the preceding subsection to such amount as shall from time to time appear to the Board to be appropriate in all the circumstances.

Mr. Roberts: We had considerable discussion of Clause 8 in Committee. I hope to keep my remarks tonight to the barest minimum, unless I am asked to explain certain matters. These Amendments bring together a number of issues affecting Clause 8 which were discussed in Committee and which I undertook to consider with a view to redrafting the Clause.
Amendment No. 6 dealt among other things with the minimum amount payable on discharge. The principle is that wages shall be paid in full on discharge and that that amount should be shown in the account of wages provided for in Clause 9. Clause 8(2) provides that if the amount exceeds £30—I am referring to the previous draft of the Bill—and it is not practicable to pay the whole of it at the time, not less than that amount shall be paid at that time and the remainder within seven days. The Amendment would increase the minimum amount from £30 to £50, or one quarter of the amount shown in the account, whichever is the greater.
Almost all wages are now paid in full and we would all expect this to continue,

I can be equally brief with this Amendment. It is of a type similar to Amendment No. 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert:

but we must legislate for those rare occAs Ions when there may be practical difficulty about making arrangements for payment in full at the time. The Pearson Committee suggested a cash payment of £20, with the remainder by cheque within 48 hours. The Clause, however, is concerned with the minimum amount payable when it is not practicable to pay the full amount.

In the July Bill, we put this at £20. This was increased to £30 in the present Bill, but there were representations on Second Reading that this was too small. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), among others, spoke strongly on this issue. There were further representations in Committee. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) produced figures showing that on a sample 18½, per cent. of seamen had less than £30 on average due to them in discharge and 30 per cent. had less than £50. I hope that I have not misquoted the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The figure I originally gave was 13 per cent. for the £30. I shall be referring to the figures later.

Mr. Roberts: I am obliged. We have taken some figures and I do not think they are much at variance with those of the hon. Gentleman. It does seem that about 70 per cent. would be entitled to more than £50 and in these circumstances it would be only fair to increase the minimum amount to £50. We also discussed the possibility of providing for at least one quarter of the wages to be paid, as in Section 134(a) of the 1894 Act. There has been some feeling that in


coming away from that form of one quarter we have worsened the Bill in relation to that Act.
On reflection, I do not think that we should be seen to be providing less than is provided in the 1894 Act, particularly as the time for payment of the balance is now seven days. This will only be significant where the wages due exceed £200 and I include the proportion as well as the sum in this amendment of Clause 8(2).
The third Amendment provides that, if the account of wages is found to need adjustment and an increased amount is due to the seaman, the balance should be paid within seven days. This is only partly covered by the present draft. At present, it applies only when the amount payable exceeds £30. This was not intended and the Amendment will make it clear that the provision applies to all amounts due to be payable on adjustment, whether over or under the minimum amount. The amount is also related to the amount shown on the account so that the penalty of wages running on will not apply if the amount on adjustment is found to exceed £50 and the balance is paid within seven days.
The fourth Amendment makes drafting alterations. I will leave things there at the moment because we may want to deal with Amendment No. 8 separately.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: May I express through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our gratitude to Mr. Speaker for agreeing to select sub-Amendment (a) for a separate Division if we decide that this is the right course after having held the debate. I take the Minister's point that we are discussing only Amendment No. 8 and the sub-amendments and we will come later to Amendment No. 9. A possible difficulty is that we are also dealing with Clause 8 and I will perforce have to make reference to Clause 9.
I will try to distinguish between the Clauses and the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 8 fulfils the promise that he gave in Committee to those of his hon. Friends who had expressed dissatisfaction with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also recognised that the Bill even as it would be amended, and as he is now proposing to Amend it, did not altogether deal with some fundamental difficulties in this area such as the payment of wages and

the making up of accounts, to which a good deal of attention was given during the debate.
The conflict of interest can be put shortly. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to what he called the basic principle that wages should whenever practicable be paid in full on discharge under a crew agreement. The Pearson Report sets it out very clearly in paragraph 364 when it says:
Whenever it is practicable the full amount outstanding in respect of wages (the net amount after deducting allotments, advances, income tax, national insurance contributions and so on) should be paid at the time of signing-off. That we think is the proper general rule.
This conflicts with the difficulty referred to and admitted, of the burden imposed upon masters, particularly of ships where they have to undertake detailed clerical tasks in the last day or so before reaching port and discharging the crew. The issue is one of safety. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said that the captain must be on the bridge watching the radar as his ship is coming up the Thames to tie up at London Docks, not sitting down in his cabin struggling to make the figures balance, to complete his charges sheet. If we adhere to the first principle that the seaman is paid off in full at the time of discharge we are inevitably imposing on the master these substantial duties.
Another factor still relevant is that the more we tie the legislation to the payment of cash in full the more difficult we make it for shipping companies to modernise their wage-accounting systems and make maximum use of computers and so on. At one stage it was argued that we should dispense altogether with any idea of a written account at the time of paying-off and have written account seven days later. That is very difficult and the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that we have been unable to reach any conclusion on accounting which we feel we can put before the House at this time. It may be that in another place we will have solutions to deal with this. We are trying to see if there is some better way of reaching a compromise on the problem.
What is before us is what was recommended in Pearson, that there should be


a payment on discharge whenever practicable with the provisional payment on account when it is not practicable to pay the full amount. The question with which our sub-Amendment is concerned is what should be the size of the payment on account. The Minister of State has said that in deference to representations made by his hon. Friends. with which I have some sympathy, the figure of £30 was felt to be inadequate and the figure of £50 was decided upon as being the sum a seaman ought to take ashore. It is more in accord with modern needs.
The right hon. Gentleman is now going back to the old alternative of a quarter of what is due, whichever is the greater. There are two specific points; what should be the specific sum and how we should introduce an element of flexibility? Simply to follow the pattern of the 1894 Act so that people do not feel that they are worse off does not strike me as a strong argument. We discussed in Committee the suggestion of flexibility based on the proposition that the figure of £50 now might be inadequate in a few years. It was, therefore, necessary to provide flexibility.
8.0 p.m.
The alternative of a quarter of the sum due is not the right way to do it. It inevitably prevents a diminution of the paper work imposed on the master. It conflicts with one of our main objectives, namely, to improve the safety of the navigation of the ship as it approaches port by cutting down the amount of paper work done by the master. Calculations will have to be done to arrive at a figure of a quarter of the balance due to the seamen.
We have suggested in Amendment (d) another way of dealing with the problem. We suggest that it should be dealt with by giving the Board of Trade power to make regulations to alter the sum in the Bill, whatever it is. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester said in Committee:
Perhaps we should leave the matter to be dealt with by regulations—which can be amended from time to time, as the cost of living and seamen's wages, and so on, change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 20th January, 1970; c. 119.]
The Minister of State accepted this in principle when he said:

£50 may prove to be unreal in a few years time. Therefore, the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others has, I think, merit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th January, 1970; c. 127.]
I believe that it has merit, and that is why we have tabled Amendment (d). This is the right way to achieve flexibility. It obviates the obligation of working out the full amount to discover what a quarter of it amounts to.
However, our main point concerns the figure of £50. The Pearson Report said £20, the July Bill said £20, the November Bill said £20 and now the figure stands at £50. The choice for us is whether we stick by the November Bill or go to the figure of £50. There could have been a compromise of £40. Hon. Members will see from the argument that there is quite a strong case for £30.
As I say, I have sympathy with those who argued that £50 is not an unreasonable sum for a seaman to go ashore with, particularly after a long voyage. He may need to replenish his wardrobe, hire a car, or undertake a long train journey. There is the desirability of having an outing with his family on reunion. These are valid reasons. I hope that more and more seamen will adopt the excellent habit of having a bank account and so be able to draw cheques and have credit cards, which is the modern way of doing things. The figure of £50 conflicts greatly with our other objective, namely, to reduce the clerical work done by the master.
I must refer to the figures which I quoted in Committee and which I am encouraged to find are substantially endorsed by the Minister's researches. This is the point on which I seek to place the greatest weight. If a minimum sum is to be paid, we must ensure that the seaman is entitled to at least that.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: No.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman says, "No", but these are people on crew agreements. They may well not be seen on the ship again. It is utterly unrealistic to imagine that it will be feasible in a large number of cases to recover any excess which may have been paid. It goes further than that: the master is liable if he overpays a seaman. If the hon. Gentleman disputes that, I should be


interested to hear his view. It is incumbent on a master, on discharging his crew and paying them off, to make sure that he does not pay more than the amount to which they are entitled. Therefore, the question is: what is the point of having a minimum payment which is so high that a substantial proportion, not necessarily a majority, of the crew will be entitled to less than that when they are paid off because they have made allotments and incurred other expenditure which are deductions allowed under the Bill?
The difference between a £30 minimum and a £50 minimum is striking. The figures which I have been able to get out show that out of a total of 2,125 seamen, 289, or 13·6 per cent., had less than £30 coming to them in the representative period, whereas if we go to £50, with the same number of seamen, 2,125, the number goes up to 639, or just over 30 per cent.—2–½ times as much.
It could be argued, and indeed the Minister of State did argue, that even if we went down to £20 there would still be some paper work, but it becomes a very minor clerical task. It becomes a question of degree. Where do we draw a line? When is it reasonable to impose a substantial additional volume of paper work on a master navigating his ship into his home port to make sure that he does not overpay seamen he is discharging in order to give an extra £10 or £20 to those whose balance of entitlement exceeds that?
I argue that 13 per cent. is tolerable and therefore the figure of £30 is adequate, although I recognise that it leaves just under one in six who will be paid less, but that 30 per cent. is intolerable and is too heavy a burden to impose. Therefore, to increase the figure to £50—and it may be desirable for the seamen, although they have it within their own hands to take steps to ensure that they are not short of cash by opening bank accounts—imposes too heavy a burden on the master.
We therefore propose by our Amendments to return to the figure which the Government thought right as recently as last November. I have sympathy with those who argue that £50 is not an unreasonable sum for a seaman to take ashore with him, but it creates undue

difficulties for masters and employers which outweigh the advantages.
The Minister of State adverted somewhat briefly in Committee and this evening to the question of figures. He said:
This is so even measured against the figures which hon. Gentlemen opposite have, quite rightly, given us: that as we increase the sum so the number of those entitled to less than the stipulated amount, if we stick to this formula, grows, too, and a certain difficulty sets in. This difficulty would remain even if we kept to the original £20. Fewer seamen would be involved, but I do not think that the difficulty in those ships where that happened would be the less because the sums stipulated were smaller. I may be wrong about this. I have not studied this point. It would be interesting to look into the incidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 20th January, 1970; c. 126.]
The Minister has looked into the incidence and confirmed my figures. He has therefore dismissed this very serious practical difficulty too lightly. It must be squarely faced.
We do not believe that even now Ministers have faced the problem of the additional burden which they are imposing on masters at a very critical point in the voyage. I remain convinced that £30 was the right figure and that the Government got it right when they first put it in the Bill. Though we appreciate with sympathy the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, we regret that the Government acceded to them.
I therefore beg to move the Amendment to the proposed, Amendment, in line 6, leave out "£50" and insert "£30".

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has made a cogent and well-argued case for reducing the £50 to £30. This all depends upon what one regards as the balance of advantage. The hon. Member said that in his view £30 was tolerable for officers whereas £50 was intolerable. The obverse of the argument is that for seamen £50 is tolerable but £30 is intolerable, for the following reason.
It is obvious that, other things being equal, the man who is paid off with a large amount due to him is likely to have been away from home on a voyage of possibly nine months or so. When a seaman returns home after a long voyage, the first thing he wants to do—at least.
if he is married—is to take his wife a reasonable present. He wants, perhaps, to take her out to dinner. She may have deferred payment of the rent or other bills knowing that he was due home. He might want a night out with the boys to celebrate his home-coming. At present-day values of money, £50 is a much more reasonable figure than £30 or the £20 which originally appeared in the Bill.
I recognise what the hon. Member said in the first part of his argument about
not less than £50 nor less than one-quarter of the amount",
because this means that the whole thing has to be worked out on each occasion. I would prefer that provision not to be included, because it could well create unnecessary work for the captain.
Figures have been given of 13·6 per cent, with a £30 figure and 30 per cent. for £50, or a ratio of just over 2 to 1. I suggest that the difference between the two would not involve twice the total amount of work. In any event, if it has to be done for as many as 13 per cent., the 30 per cent. could equally be done without detracting from the efficiency of the ship or taking the master away from other duties. There are other people aboard ship apart from the master who could do the work, certainly on big liners, although not even on small liners does the master always have to do it. He has power to delegate other people to do this work for him.
I know that there would be a disadvantage to the master by raising the figure to £50, but that would be outweighed by the great advantage of fairness to the seaman who comes back after a long voyage and who wants to do the things I have mentioned.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I should like to make two points following what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) has said, and I will not repeat what I said in Standing Committee. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) concerning the percentages, but has the reverse process been followed to ascertain the percentage of masters who have the absolute responsibility of work-

ing out the wages that are due? If that has been done, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that having verified that £30 or approximately that amount is due, is it not a great deal more difficult to verify that a sum in excess of £30 is due? In striking a balance, a figure has to be set. If the hon. Gentleman believes that sympathy should be shown to seamen in this situation, he is bound to come to the conclusion that £50 is a reasonable sum.
I hope that, in future, seamen will have the same creditworthiness as others for bank accounts, but I should like to recall to the hon. Gentleman our discussions in Committee and on Second Reading and the discussions prior to the introduction of the Bill. There is no doubt that special provision has to be made for demurrage of wages because of the situation in which a seaman can find himself without money. The reason for this demurrage is that banks can be closed and money is not available to the shipowner or the master. Equally, it will not be available to the seaman either. These things have to be taken into account.
Everyone would agree that with the present value of money, £50 is a reasonable sum. The Bill originally specified £20. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford agreed that that figure should be adjusted. It is not much further for him to go to accept a figure of £50. The hon. Member's argument in support of £30 could, if critically analysed, be applied also to £50. I hope that he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have only two comments to make on what the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said about the difficulties caused by increasing the basic payment to £50. I agree that figures of £20, £30 and £50 would, in varying degree, create difficulty for masters who have to deal with accountancy as well as look after their ships, but my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) has pointed out that not all masters are in that invidious position. One would expect the industry to take cognisance of circumstances which gave rise to the need for assistance for the master to be able to do what he regarded as being the highest priority among two occupations on the ship.
As I said in Committee, I feel that somehow it is always expected that the seaman should bear the burden of the inadequacy of provision to deal with accountancy. That is not the way that we should look at the position; it does not appeal to me. If for practical reasons the industry finds it impossible, in the small minority of cases where there is reason for this, to pay off a man in full, it should pay as much as possible. Fifty pounds commends itself to those who are mainly concerned—that is, the seamen—and we have accepted that. If there is a risk that a master might be diverted from safety work because he has to do sums, the remedy is obvious: the company must step in and provide assistance. That is the answer.
I should like to make another point concerning the mathematics. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has referred to 70 per cent. of the people and to 30 per cent. being involved when the figure goes up to £50. We should be careful to realise that we are dealing with a minority before we apply these percentages to them and we should not get the impression that 70 per cent. applies to the whole of the merchant fleet. The 100 per cent. are the small minority who are involved in this kind of delayed payment. It is within that small minority that the percentages, whatever they are

—and I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures—apply.

The problem is not a big one. I had hoped, after our exchanges in Committee, and the clearly expressed feelings of hon. Members then and on Second Reading, that the figure of £50 would be accepted, and that we would not need to differ between £30 and £50. I do not know what are the hon. Gentleman's intentions on Amendment (a). I have to move my Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It has been moved.

Mr. Roberts: It has been moved, and it is for the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, to move his Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The sub-Amendment has been moved.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With the leave of the House, I do not think that further discussion will reconcile the difference between us. The issue is one of safety as well as of convenience, and I think it is right that we should press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 162.

Division No.79]
AYES
[8.23 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Biffen, John
Fry, peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Biggs-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Black, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nort, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dance, James
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)




Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Wylie, N. R.


Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Younger, Hn. George


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wiggin, Jerry



Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Hector Monro.


Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Ogden, Eric


Allen, Scholefield
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Haseldine, Norman
Paget, R. T.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horner, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boston, Terence
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hynd, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rankin, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn


Buchan, Norman
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Chapman, Donald
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E.


Conlan, Bernard
Lee Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lubbock Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
MoCann, John
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McElhone, Frank
steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Delargy, H. J.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dewar, Donald
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dickens, James
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne Dick


Dobson, Ray
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster,)


Edwards Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, David
Watkins, David (consett)


Ellis, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mendelson, John
Whitaker, Ben


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardiey)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Miller, D. M. s.
Willey, R. Hn. Frederick


Finch, Harold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (s'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Molloy, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Murgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Galpern, sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (wythenshawe)



Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Neil McBride and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Proposed Amendment agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move leave out subsection (3) and insert:

(3) If any amount which, under the preceding provisions of this section is payable to a seaman is not paid at the time at which it is so payable, the seaman shall be entitled to wages at the rate last payable under the crew agreement for every day on which it remains unpaid during the period of fifty-six days following the time of discharge; and if any such amount or any amount payable by virtue of this subsection remains unpaid after the end of that period it shall carry interest at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum.

Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 10,

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest we take sub-Amendment (e), in line 2, leave out from 'payable' to 'it' in line 6.
Sub-Amendment (f), in line 6, at end insert:
Provided that the obligation under this subsection to pay wages for a period not exceeding fifty-six days shall not apply in respect of any period during which the seaman is again employed.
and sub-Amendment (g), in line 6, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any sum retained by the persons employing the seaman in respect of which there is a bona fide dispute, or a mistake has been made, or such persons claim bona fide to be entitled to a set off or counterclaim against the seaman.

Mr. Roberts: This Amendment makes drafting alterations to Clause 8(3), which was amended in Committee. This provides that in the event of non-payment contrary to these provisions wages would run for 56 days and thereafter there would be interest of 20 per cent. on any amount unpaid. The Amendment is solely a drafting matter and makes no change of substance in the Amendment adopted by the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected sub-Amendment (e) to be moved for a Division if called.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, leave out from "payable' to 'it' in. line 6.
We have already had a considerable discussion of the main points involved. We are agreed that it is important that wages should be paid as accurately as possible to seamen after they have been discharged. It has been agreed that masters are under special difficulties because they have to prepare their accounts in some cases themselves or in other cases they have people to help them. This work usually takes place when they are approaching port when, of course, their responsibilities are at their greatest. We should like to move certain Amendments to this Amendment. The effect is to ensure that wages will not be payable for the first 56 days as well as involving the 20 per cent. interest.
Some comment was made on this matter by the Pearson Committee, which took the view that this was unduly severe.
There was discussion about this matter in Committee, but we did not go into very great detail. We believe that the Minister was under some misapprehension in Committee as to what, in fact, Pearson recommended. The relevant paragraph of Pearson is paragraph 373, which says that such an intention is sound but any provision would be too drastic as a deterrent. It is certainly desirable that owners should be deterred from being remiss and paying late, but Amendment No. 9 appears to be too hard.
The second Amendment which we have down on this matter deals with seamen who are already found other employment so that if the penal Clauses were retained they would be getting two different sorts of wages. Sub-Amendment (g) arises where there is a bona fide dispute or mistake. In this age of computers mistakes seem to happen frequently and it does not seem just that such large penalties should be imposed on the owner where a genuine mistake has been made.
I believe that the provisions in the Bill are unreasonable and we seek to leave out the provision about wages having to be paid for 56 days in the event of default.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: This Amendment seeks to remove the provision in Amendment No. 9 that where amounts due to be paid are not so paid wages will run on for periods up to 56 days and substitute a simple provision for 20 per cent. interest. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee. I think that we are agreed that there should be a severe penalty if wages are not paid when due. The suggestion for 56 days is a compromise. At present, wages run on indefinitely.
It is true that Pearson preferred to provide for a high rate of interest instead of wages running on. We find this in paragraph 377. But in paragraph 376 the report suggests that if the principle of wages running on is retained there should be a maximum period of two months. A period of 56 days is in accordance with this. I do not think that a 20 per cent. rate of interest during this period would provide a sufficient deterrent against dilatory payment during which time the seaman's hardship would be severe.
For these reasons, I feel that a more severe penalty than that recommended


by the Pearson Report is necessary and the Clause now follows the suggestion in the report of a limitation of two months on wages running on. I feel that this is the right course to follow and I would invite the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman to say anything about the other Amendments which are reflected in the recommendations of Pearson in relation to the 56-day period?

Mr. Roberts: That is in relation to Amendment (g). That is already covered by Clause 8 (4). In so far as it introduces new matter, I consider it to be undesirable.
Turning to the three cases dealt with in the Amendment, the first case concerns a bona fide dispute. This case is covered by the first two lines of subsection (4) which read:
Subsection (3) of this section does not apply if the failure to pay was due to a reasonable dispute as to liability.
The second case is when a mistake has been made. I think that we would all agree that this is a desirable provision and that wages should not run on if failure to pay has been due to a bona fide mistake.
I am advised, however, that the provisions in subsection (4) that subsection

(3) shall not apply if failure to pay was due
… to any cause not being the wrongful act or default of the persons paying the wages 
are apt to cover this case. These words follow those in Section 134(c) of the 1894 Act, and so far as I know it has never been suggested that wages run on under this section if non-payment was due to a bona fide mistake.

The last case is when there is a bona fide claim by way of set-off or counterclaim on the part of the employer. Here, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposals. It is a fundamental concept behind subsection (1) that wages should be paid in full at the time of discharge, subject only to authorised deductions. In such circumstances, claims by way of set-off or counterclaim might be authorised as deductions, but only after the necessary consultations had been gone through and regulations made under Clause 10. I cannot accept that we should allow all claims by way of set-off or counter claim to be deducted.

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 167.

Division No. 80.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Farr, John
Lane, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Biffen, John
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McMaster, Stanley


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brewis, John
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nott, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Crouch, David
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dance, James
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dean, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas




sharples, Richard
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, Anthony
Walters, Dennis
Wylle, N. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Carthcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Allen, Scholefield
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Beaney, Alan
Hooley, Frank
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b"n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Buchan, Norman
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rees, Merlyn


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Judd, Frank
Rhodes Geoffrey


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Rt Hn. Goronwy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose Paul


Concannon, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw Arnold (IIford, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Loughtin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Luard, Evan
shore Rt Hn Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Lubbock, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, Neil
Silverman Julius


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
McCann, John
Stater, Joseph


Davies, S. o. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Delargy, H. J.
McElhone, Frank
stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dewar, Donald
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dickens, James
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)



Dobson, Ray
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T.W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C' b'e)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marquand, David
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernynough, E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, John
whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, william (Coventry) s.,


Galpem, Sir Myer
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn Rt. Hn. A


Golding, John
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Terence Boston and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Proposed Amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: I beg to move Amendment No.10, in line 21, after 'or', insert 'wilful'.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No.
13 in Clause 13, page 7, line 42, after 'or' insert 'wilful'.

Mr. McMaster: Clause 8 is concerned with the payment of seamen's wages. Subsection (3) provides that a penalty shall be paid by employers if, in certain circumstances, wages are not paid on the date of discharge to seamen. Subsection (4) provides for employers to be relieved


of that penalty in certain circumstances. However, that relief shall apply only if there has not been a wrongful act or default.
As drafted, it appears that a genuine mistake—in these days of computerisation it is possible that a computer error will occur—it may not result in an employed gaining exemption, with the result that he may be liable to the penalty provided under subsection (3). This seems to be harsh, particularly when such errors may not be discovered for some time. We should bear in mind that a penalty of full wages for 56 days, as mentioned in subsection (3), would be a considerable sum.
The Amendment therefore seeks to insert the word "wilful" before the word "default" so as to exempt the employer from liability in cases where there has been no negligence, but only a genuine mistake, or, perhaps, a computer error.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am not prepared to recommend the House to accept this Amendment. I think that we would all agree that the employer should not be liable for the severe penalties specified in subsection (3) if his failure to pay wages is due to an accidental miscalculation or some other completely innocent cause, and I suggest that the phrase
… not being the wrongful act or default …
is apt to achieve this purpose. It is a phrase which is found in the similar provisions of Section 134(c) of the 1894 Act, and, as far as I am aware, it has not been claimed that an accidental error in calculations or similar cause comes within it, or that under that Section wages would run on in those circumstances.
The hon. Member is, perhaps, placing too much emphasis on the word "default"—which can in certain circumstances, I admit, mean any failure to pay—and too little on the whole phrase "wrongful act or default". This is a phrase on which, taken as a whole, there is, I am advised, a certain amount of legal authority, and by virtue of which, so it appears to me, at least an element of negligence would have to be imported before a default came within it.
A final criticism of the Amendment is that if the failure to pay were due to an employer's act, one epithet would be

applicable—"wrongful"—but if it were due to a default a different epithet would be applicable—"wilful"; that is to say, deliberate. No longer would the epithet "wrongful" apply to both the act and the default. This could give rise to considerable further argument as to whether the employer's act or omission was a wrongful act or a deliberate default and what, if anything, was the distinction between the two. Similar considerations apply to the parallel Amendment, No. 13, to Clause 13, and I advise the House to reject both.
As I say, the phrase in question should be taken as a whole. I am not claiming conclusive legal authority for it, but it is fairly generally accepted as a phrase which, taken as a whole, brings within it the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. McMaster: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. It all turns on the construction of the words "wrongful act". I am no expert in these matters and, as the Minister knows, the courts have rules for construing such words. It was the phrasing which caused some apprehension to the shipowners I know. However, on the Minister's assurance that the word "wrongful" applies to both "act" and "default," I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

REGULATIONS RELATING TO WAGES AND ACCOUNTS

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 29, leave out 'contract' and insert:
'his obligations under the agreement'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we will discuss also Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 26, leave out 'under a crew agreement'.

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised on Second Reading and in Committee the matter of deductions authorised by regulations under the Clause in respect of "a breach of contract". It was generally felt by the Committee that these words might


be construed in too wide a sense. In particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), among other hon. Members, urged that the authorised deductions to which we refer here should relate to breach of a seaman's obligations under the crew agreement and should not extend to breaches of other contracts.
I did not think there was much danger of there being any dubiety on this point, but I said in Committee that I would wish to clarify the doubts that had been expressed and that it was not our intention to authorise deductions in respect of any breach of contract other than a breach of contract of employment. I undertook to consider whether I should tighten paragraph (a). I have reconsidered the matter and this Amendment substitutes the reference to
a breach of his obligations under the agreement
for the words "a breach of contract". I think that puts the matter beyond doubt.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 11 which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have kindly said we can discuss with the Government Amendment No. 12. This Amendment repeats an Amendment we tabled in Committee to remove the words "under a crew agreement" to extend the power to make regulations to authorise deductions of wages payable under agreements other than a crew agreement—what is called in the Bill a company agreement. I am not at all convinced that these words ought to be in the Bill.
If I may, I advert without argument to Government Amendment No. 14 to Clause 14. We made a very similar point in that connection. The right to make repayments was being treated differently for seamen paid under a crew agreement for seamen paid otherwise than under a crew agreement. Under Clause 14 the Government have taken the point and recognised that they should put them on all fours and no distinction should be drawn.
In Clause10 we still have a distinction for the purpose of making deductions

between a crew paid under a crew agreement and a crew paid otherwise. That does not seem to be right. It is perfectly legitimate for the owners to pay wages to their seamen and make deductions other than under a crew agreement and they should have authority to make deductions. If the Bill stays as it is, an employer who pays otherwise than through a crew agreement will not have authority to make deductions. It may be that one is chasing a false hare, but it seems that there should not be a distinction made between a crew paid under a crew agreement and a crew paid otherwise which perhaps the circumstances do not warrant.

Mr. McNamara: I thank my right hon. Friend for yet another acceptance of a proposal made in Committee. We disagreed about the interpretation of Clause 10, but my right hon. Friend has gone a long way to meet our proposals. He has removed the doubt and what now is in a crew agreement will be subject to negotiation by people in the industry. This being so, it gets back to a point I made that this is the right place for these things to be dealt with. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for acceding to our request.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I regret that inadvertently I did not address myself to Amendment No. 11, when I was speaking on Amendment No. 12. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford will have heard my argument, but I will repeat it briefly. In our view, Amendment No. 11 is not necessary. There is no need for regulations to authorise deductions from wages payable otherwise than under a crew agreement because there is nothing in the Bill to prohibit it.
Clause 8(1), which prohibits unauthorised deductions, is limited to wages due under a crew agreement, so Clause 10 is also so limited. I am advised that there is nothing to prevent deductions from seamen's wages payable otherwise than under a crew agreement and therefore no need to authorise deductions. The gap between us is whether there should be a statutory provision. We are quite convinced that there is no need for an Amendment to make such provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

ALLOTMENT NOTES

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 14 and insert:
'A seaman's right to make an allotment under this section '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discuss Amendments Nos. 15–17.

Mr. Roberts: The Clause deals with arrangements whereby seamen proceeding on a voyage may allot part of their wages to a nominated person or body. Seamen whose wages are payable under a crew agreement are given a right to allotment, subject to limitations, such as on numbers, imposed by regulations. Where, however, the wages are payable otherwise than under a crew agreement—for instance, where there has been negotiation of a general contract of employment which has enabled the seaman to be exempted from the requirement for a crew agreement—it was felt that the arrangements for allotments should also be a matter for negotiation between employer and seamen.
In our discussion in Committee, we felt that there should not be all that much difference in practice and that we might enable the regulations to deal with both cases. I undertook to look at this again, at the request of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who made some helpful comments and suggestions, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
The points might be met if we enable regulations to deal with the right to, and limitations on, allotments where wages are payable otherwise than under a crew agreement as well as those under a crew agreement as at present. The Amendments seek to achieve this end. A general power to prescribe limitation is added. Here we have in mind, without prejudging the point at this stage, the possibility of requiring mutual agreement in certain circumstances.
The Amendment will also enable the regulation to make different provisions in relation to these two classes of service and otherwise as may be necessary. We shall consult the industry about the regulations. It is not essential that the arrangement should differ, but the regulations will enable them to do so if it becomes necessary in certain cases that this should be so. There will be ample room for regulation in different circumstances and for coping with future developments—quite as important as a variation of circumstances at a given time—and a right to make an allotment can be established for all. Limitations in both cases can ensure that the integrity of the restriction on assignments can be maintained in both cases.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This is another Amendment to deal with a point I raised in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister of State for acceding to it as fully and as readily as he has done.
Perhaps I can use the Amendment as a peg on which to hang, in a few sentences, a general point. In an earlier debate we were accused of representing only the interests of shipowners, whereas hon. Members opposite claim to be the sole representatives of the seamen. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) indicating his denial of that proposition. He will remember that, time and time again, our side of the Committee, supported by hon. Members opposite, proposed an Amendment such as this one designed to smooth the administration of the Bill. I am grateful to have the right hon. Gentleman's assent to it. It was an unworthy accusation. We, like everybody else, have sought to have regard to all interests. This minor point on allotments is an example.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 15, in page 8, leave out lines 19 and 20.

No. 16, in line 20, at end insert:
(a) may limit the circumstances in which allotments may be made;.

No.17, in line 31, at end insert:
(4) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different descriptions of seamen and different circumstances, .—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Clause 16

RIGHT, OR LOSS OF RIGHT, TO WAGES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 19, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 11 and insert 'unless'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it might be convenient to take, at the same time, Amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 15, after 'Kingdom', insert 'or ceases to be so registered'.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That would be agreeable to this side, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Roberts: Clause 16(1)(b) at present says that, where a United Kingdom registered ship is wrecked or lost,
a seaman employed in the ship shall not be entitled to his wages if it is proved that he did not make reasonable efforts to save the ship and persons and property carried in it.
We do not think that this provision should apply to wages in general—that is all the wages which the seaman may have earned during the voyage. We consider that it should be limited to wages payable during unemployment under Clause 16(1)(a) and that the normal rules of contract should apply to wages earned prior to the shipwreck.
The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) and I undertook to look at it. I have now done so and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the purpose, as now expressed in Amendment No. 18, meets the point.
I turn now to Amendment No. 19. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) moved a series of Amendments in Committee relating to a seaman's being entitled to wages under Clause 16 during his unemployment when he is discharged under Clause 6 as a consequence of his ship ceasing to be registered in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) also expressed concern about this, as did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). At

that time, I shared their concern and agreed in principle that Clause 16 must hinge on whether a seaman can reasonably be said to be out of a job.
I said in Committee:
… whether a seaman finds himself caught by shipwreck, loss or sale,…"—
that is, of his ship—
or by transfer of registration, he should be eligible for comparable remedies, including the payment of up to eight weeks wages, because the conditions are broadly the same."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th January, 1970; c. 214.]
This was the general view of the Committee and it was on that understanding that I proceeded to reconsider the matter. I am pleased to say that I am able to propose, in this Amendment, of an amendment of Clause 16(2) so that it has the effect I have mentioned.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Once again, we acknowledge with gratitude what the Government have done here and I am glad that the Minister has taken the opportunity, as it were, to correct the HANSARD report of what he said because in c. 214 it is reported in the original volume:
including the payment of eight weeks wages,….—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th January, 1970; c. 214.]
That would not be right because it would be only up to a maximum of eight weeks and the Minister has made it clear that that is what he intended to say.
The right hon. Gentleman probably did say that, but it has not come out quite right in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This has given rise to a little concern and we are grateful to him for having corrected it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 19, in page 9, line 15, after 'Kingdom', insert:
'or ceases to be so registered '.—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
This arises from a matter raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). We all regret that the hon. Gentleman is not able to be with us. He had the courtesy to inform me yesterday that pressing engagements would keep him away from our debate today.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that subsection (4) stood very much on its


own. It deals with a seaman's not being entitled to his wages in certain circumstances. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that it really had little to do with the subject matter of the preceding subsection. His proposal then was that it should go in a separate Clause on its own. There was, however, some objection to the subsection as a whole: several of my hon. Friends expressed themselves on that point.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), on the other hand, opposed the omission of the subsection whilst supporting its inclusion as a separate Clause. I recall his argument as being that the Bill as a whole represented a package deal and a compromise between what was desired and what was disliked on all sides of the industry. He urged me to bear this carefully in mind before modifying or omitting a provision such as this.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have given most careful thought to what has been said on this important matter. Upon detailed reflection, I have reached the view that the subsection is not necessary to the Bill. It is essentially a reenactment of the substance of Sections 159 and 160 of the 1894 Act, with the addition of the reference to absence without leave and injury. In the less paternalistic atmosphere of today, when we are getting rid of so much unnecessary detail, I feel, on reconsideration, that subsection (4) is not necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford will agree.
I need take the argument no further. The Bill loses nothing by deletion of this subsection, and I hope that the House will accept my advice.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. When we saw this Amendment on the Paper, I was a bit shocked, in the light of what had been said in Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he was pressed by one or two of his hon. Friends in Committee to delete the subsection. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said:
 I regard this provision as absolutely monstrous "—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 27th January, 1970; c. 218.]

Obviously, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North carries great influence with the Government, for the next thing that happens is that the subsection disappears.
This represents—I am choosing my words carefully—something in the nature of a breach of faith with those who have been conducting negotiations with the Government and among themselves over the past few years. The Minister of State was kind enough to refer to my speech on the Clause in Committee. I recall that I stressed that the whole Bill represented a package deal. On Second Reading, the President of the Board of Trade himself said:
… the legislative provisions which we are considering today are, broadly speaking, an acceptable package"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1311.]
That is the basis on which it has proceeded throughout.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Oh.

Mr. Jenkin: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "Oh"—

Mr. Lewis: Broadly speaking.

Mr. Jenkin: Broadly speaking—I gather that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree, so perhaps I read more into his interjection than he intended. No one has all that he wants, but who goes into any negotiation expecting to get everything? What one achieves is, broadly speaking, as the President of the Board of Trade said, an acceptable package. The Minister of State himself intervened during my speech on that earlier occasion to take up my point that part one of Pearson is as much part of the package as part two, and on another occasion he went so far as to say that it is, perhaps, even more important than part two of Pearson, which we are now embodying in legislation.
9.15 p.m.
There is no doubt that masters and officers, as well as their employers, regard the positions of Clause 16(4) as important. It is necessary that an officer or master in dealing with seamen, bearing in mind that they may be hundreds or thousands of miles away from the home port, shall have specific statutory provisions to point to so that he can say, "The Act says that you are not entitled to wages if you unlawfully refuse to work, go absent without


leave, or are incapable of performing your duties by reason of illness or injury shown to have been caused by your own wilful act or default". In ordinary factory life at home such matters can be sorted out and dealt with through the normal machinery of collective bargaining but in a ship, perhaps thousands of miles from home, that becomes much more difficult.
Like a golden thread running through much of the Bill is the single fact that a ship is quite different from a factory. Therefore, we were very disturbed to find that the Minister had found it necessary to yield to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who regarded the provision as
absolutely monstrous
and to take the subsection out. He owes the House and the other parties to the package deal a fuller explanation of why he thinks it to be unnecessary. I am informed that masters have relied on its predecessor expressly when confronted with the sort of difficulties to which the subsection relates.
At no stage throughout the whole proceedings has the British Shipping Federation made to us any proposal which in one jot or tittle departs from Pearson. We have made a number of proposals from this Dispatch Box and in Committee for departures from Pearson. But the employers' side has never asked us to make amendments which depart from the report. I wish that the same could be said of some of the other parties to this acceptable package deal. That is why, not unnaturally, the officers of the Federation feel a bit sore when they find the package to which they have agreed, and at no stage sought to depart from, being whittled away because the Government yielded to pressure from one of the members of its Left wing. This is utterly unacceptable, and I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Amendment.

Mr. John Mendelson: To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, he must not be included in the Left wing without his permission being asked first.

Mr. Booth: I support the Amendment, and I am rather surprised at the words used by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). The

sort of power that would have been accorded to a ship's officer had the subsection been left in the Bill would not have been one stick with which to beat a seaman but two for the same offence.
If he is absent without leave, which is the subject of subsection (4)(b), a seaman can also be clobbered under Clause 32, and if, as subsection (4)(a) puts it,
he unlawfully refuses or neglects to work when required 
he can also be clobbered under Clause 30, and so on.
It would be monstrous if, when there are specific penalties in other parts of the Bill for such offences, and therefore there is a code of discipline in respect of such actions, there should also be the possibility of a man being denied pay under the subsection.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is taking a different view from what I suspect to be that of his right hon. Friend, who said in Committee that this matter would rest on contract, under the crew agreement. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that a seaman would be entitled to wages and that there would be no entitlement to make a deduction, if he went absent without leave? Is that really what he is arguing?

Mr. Booth: What I am arguing is that if the subsection had stood the right of the officer to say, "You will have your wages stopped", would have been in no way dependent on the crew agreement. Therefore, it would have been offensive to the concept of discipline and officer power envisaged in the Bill to have the subsection in addition to the other Clauses which lay down a code which has been hammered out within the package.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I, too, am surprised by the vehemence of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). If Clause 16(4) is omitted, wages can still be withheld for the reasons given in that subsection. If necessary, deductions in this respect could be authorised by reference to Clause 10. If a seaman unlawfully refuses or neglects to work or is absent without leave or wilfully renders himself incapable of performing his duties, he will usually be in breach of his contract of employment and


the employer will have his normal remedies in contract. If the employers do not consider that these remedies are adequate, the terms of relevant contracts might well include provisions along the lines of subsection (4).
In my view, these are contractual matters which should be left to industrial negotiation. I understood hon. Members opposite to emphasise that they rest on civil law in these matters. We certainly believe that, wherever possible, we should make the effort to take these issues out of statute and put them into contract. We have just had a lengthy debate, which I know the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, his hon. Friends and I hope will not affect the acceptability of the Bill. Indeed, we hope that it will make it more acceptable and more workable. The whole tone of that debate was directed against the presence in a statute of certain provisions. I understand the hon. Gentleman to argue, however, that there should be in statute some kind of reminder or warning. There

is something to be said for that. But, on balance, it will help the Bill and its acceptability, and certainly does not detract from its value, to delete this subsection.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I may speak again by leave of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not usual on Report stage for a second speech to be made, even by leave of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman may speak again on this occasion if he has the leave of the House.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall be exceedingly brief, Mr. Speaker. I do not accept the Minister of State's argument, and to the extent to which he has referred to Clause 10 he is deluding his hon. Friend. I feel justified in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new Amendment.

Question putt, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 111.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[9.23 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Luard, Evan


Allen, Scholefieid
Ellis, John
Lubbock, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Armstrong, Ernest
Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McElhone, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Blackburn, F.
Golding, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric s.
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marquand, David


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooson, Emiyn
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horner, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Chapman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Concannon, J.D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Moyle, Roland


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oswald, Thomas


Delargy, H. J.
Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dickens, James
Lawson, George
Paget, R. T.


Dobson, Ray
Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)




Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pentland, Norman
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
Wallace, George


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, 8.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silverman, Julius
Whitaker, Ben


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Stater, Joseph
Whitlock, william


Rankin, John
Snow, Julian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rees, Merlyn
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taverne, Dick
Woof, Robert


Pose, Paul
Tinn, James



Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rowlands, E.
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Sheldon, Robert






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cower, Raymond
Peel, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Harvle Anderson, Miss
Prior, J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hordern Peter
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt John
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Temple, John M.


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Waddington, David


Dance, James
Lane, David
Wall, Patrick


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, sir Harry
Walters, Dennis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Wiggin, Jerry


Drayson, G. B.
Mactean, Sir Fitzroy
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Woodnutt, Mark


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Worsley, Marcus


Elliott, R. W. (N'o'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Chartes
Montgomery, Fergus



Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fry, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Mr. Jasper More and


Gibson-Watt, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Hector Monro.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nott, John

Clause 18

CLAIMS AGAINST SEAMAN'S WAGES FOR MAINTENANCE, ETC., OF DEPENDANTS

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 11, leave out lines 3 to 5.
It would be for the convenience of the House if we also took Amendment No. 22 with this Amendment.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) drew

attention in Committee to difficulties in administering this Clause when allotments have to be allocated between dependants. We have examined the point and agree that these are matters eminently suitable to be dealt with by regulation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 22, in page 12, line 7, at end insert:
'and the amounts specified under paragraph (e) of this subsection may include amounts allotted by allotment notes issued under section 14 of this Act '.—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Clause 20

SAFETY REGULATIONS

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment 23, in page 13, line 2, at end insert:
(e) make provision for the discharge, by persons appointed from among the persons employed in a ship, of functions in connection with the arrangements to be made under the regulations.
The general objective of securing safe working conditions for seafarers is set out in the first part of the Clause. This addition to the specific matters which regulations may cover in furtherance of that objective makes it clear that regulations could be made to govern the appointment of safety committees, safety officers and safety representatives on board the ship. Although other regulations which might be made could do much to ensure that the ground work for safe working conditions exists on board ship, safe working involves everyone on the ship and everyone should be able to play his part. Joint consultation on safety committees can go a long way to engendering a feeling of participation in efforts to prevent accidents.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

EXPENSES OF MEDICAL TREATMENT, ETC., DURING VOYAGE

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 39, at end insert:
Provided that—

(i) the liability of those persons shall be conditional upon the person so employed or his legal personal representatives affording to those persons every facility to prosecute in his name any claim for indemnity or damages or otherwise, and allowing them full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or in the settlement of any claim, and, to the extent of such conditional liability, surrendering to them all rights in respect of such claim;
(ii) nothing contained in this section shall prejudice any right of recovery of such expenses from a person other than the person so employed.

Clause 27 imposes a new obligation on employers to pay for surgical, medical

dental or optical treatment for seamen who receive such treatment outside the United Kingdom. In a number of cases the treatment will be occasioned by an accident in which there is liability on a third party. An obvious example is a seaman who goes ashore in Yokohama and is run over by a Japanese bus and he has a cause of action against the bus company. The employer is under an obligation to pay, in the first instance, for the medical treatment. But, under English law, he would have a right of subrogation against the bus company for any costs incurred on behalf of the injured seaman.
It seems to us that it is necessary to provide for the seaman, as it were, to lend his name to any proceedings to enable the employer to recover from the bus company. If the seaman does not lend his name and allows the employer to proceed with the action, it may well be that the employer will never be able to recover anything from the guilty party, namely, the bus company.
When we raised this matter in Committee, the Minister of State said that he was
not persuaded as to the practical necessity of this proposal.
He also said that
… if the point is to be covered at all, should not it be dealt with in the contract Of employment …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th January, 1970; c. 286.]
This does not seem to me to be enough. It might well be covered in the contract of employment and a foreign court might recognise that and enable the action to proceed against the bus company on the basis of the contractual obligation. But here we are imposing on the employer a statutory obligation to pay the medical expenses; it is being required of him by Act of Parliament. It is not unreasonable that the same Act should make those expenses recoverable by the employer if somebody else is liable at law to pay them.
That is all that we ask. I hope that the Minister of State, having said that he would look at this point again, has had second thoughts and will recognise that there may be something in it. Perhaps our wording is not right, but it is fairly clear that it should be dealt with


in a statute and should not rest on contract. I hope that the Minister of State will look on the Amendment more favourably than he did when we moved it in Committee.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I cannot do that, although I sympathise with the motive behind the Amendment. As I said in Committee, we agree that it is reasonable that an employer should be assisted by the seaman concerned in recovering, if legally possible, expenses he has incurred when an employee has been injured by a third party. However, I am not persuaded as to the necessity or desirability of making statutory provision in the Bill to that effect.
I have looked into this matter and I have taken advice in the light of our discussions in Committee. I have, in particular, studied the remarks of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). I am still of the opinion that the Bill is not the place in which to make such provisions as these. I still think that these are matters which are more appropriately dealt with in the contract of employment between the employer and the seaman.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said:
I feel that it is reasonable, either as an Amendment to Clause 26"—
now Clause 27—
or in the contract of service, as the Minister suggested …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th January, 1970; c. 287.]
Such contractual provision could take account of the many countries and circumstances in which recoveries might have to be made. I believe that there would be advantage in doing it contractually. A Statute is not as flexible for this purpose as contracts would be.
I can only assure the hon. Member that I have thought hard and consulted about this and that I have not found it possible to meet his wishes on the point.

Mr. Jenkin: In the circumstances, perhaps it would be wrong, in the light of the further investigations that the Minister has made, to press the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR SHIP'S DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 19, line 4, after 'by', insert 'members of'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that, with this Amendment, we take Amendment No. 29, in page 19, line 11, after 'by', insert 'members of'.

Mr. Roberts: These are Amendments which are designed to clarify the Clause so as to refer to members of ship's disciplinary committees so that the regulations under which these committees will be set up may provide for flexibility in the membership of the committee according to the type of case under consideration. Thus, we may wish to provide, as the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) suggested in Committee when quoting, I think, from National Maritime Board proposals, that one rating should come from the department in which the seaman about whom there is a complaint works.
These Amendments will enable regulations to cover such arrangements and, without going into more detail, might provide a very useful basis for the vertical and horizontal rotation of members of a crew to serve on the committee from time to time.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Amendment No. 27, which I decided late in the day to select, with which I suggest that we take Amendment No. 28, in page 19, line 6, at end insert:
(2) The functions mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be the taking of evidence, and the determination of any question of facts (including the question of whether or not a disciplinary offence has been committed) but shall not include the imposition of any fine or other penalty which shall remain within the execusive power of the master.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 19, line 5, leave out
'of all or any of the powers of'
and insert
'of certain functions, contained in the next following subsection, otherwise exercisable by'.


We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this important Amendment because it deals with perhaps the central Clause of the Bill relating to the novel experiment of ship's committees exercising the disciplinary powers which formerly were the exclusive prerogative of the master.
The House on Second Reading and the Committee upstairs certainly accepted the principle of this experiment. We do not seek to go back on that, because we do not go back on what has been accepted in principle by the House and the Committee. Nevertheless, there are obvious dangers to which the Pearson Report drew attention in this novel experiment.
The dangers which Lord Pearson and his distinguished colleagues saw were twofold. They saw the danger that there might be a difference of opinion on such a committee, composed not only of officers but also of the lower deck, which might spread antagonism throughout the two sides of the ship's company and do great damage to morale. Secondly, the Pearson Inquiry thought that some of the lower deck might feel resentment against the ratings' representative who had concurred in an unpopular decision.
It is to avoid those objections, while accepting the principle, that we suggest, by the combination of the two Amendments, that the master's function should remain exclusively in the matter of sentencing, whereas the committee, tribunal or whatever word one uses should be the judges of fact—rather as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) said in Committee, that the committee should be the jury and the master shoud be the judge. The parallel is not exact, but it is not a bad one. The danger of resentment by the rating from being found guilty on a question of fact by his fellows is not as great as the danger of resentment if he receives a sentence, if that be the right word, which he regards as unduly savage from his fellow ratings. That might produce a situation of bad morale.
9.45 p.m.
Furthermore, sentencing is a very specialised art. A jury, or laymen, or persons who perhaps deal with these matters for the first and only time in their lives, are just as good judges of fact as anybody who is an expert in the matter.

and that is the principle of the jury system in this country. Many judges, when they do not have a jury, say that they wish they had the assistance of a jury for the purpose of deciding questions of fact. Therefore, it seems to us very appropriate, if we are to have these committees, that they should be the judges of fact.
When it comes to the penalty, somewhat different considerations apply, considerations not only of morale and of putting rating against rating in the way that Pearson feared, but also in the way suggested by the Joint Committee of the National Maritime Board in the document that was much discussed in Committee. The National Maritime Board, to whom great tributes have been paid, not only by the Treasury bench but by hon. Gentlemen behind, said this in paragraph 20 of that document:
The penalty to be imposed shall be decided by the master who will take into consideration any views expressed by members of the tribunal.
That puts better even than our Amendment the division of function that we suggest. We suggest that the master, after no doubt listening to advice and assistance from the committee, shall be the ultimate judge of the penalty, even though the committee itself shall be the judge of fact, a distinction well known throughout the law.
In this matter of the ships' committees we should proceed cautiously. I do not believe that the Minister would dissent from that. There was a lot of discussion in Committee about exactly what Pearson recommended. It was an almost theological or semantic dissection of the tenets of Pearson which, like the Codex Bezae or some other mediaeval document was not entirely consistent. I must remind the Minister that one phrase of Pearson seemed to go against the whole proposal. It was that:
jurisdiction, for the time being at any rate, remain vested in the master.
That is a clear sentence amid a penumbra of dubiety, but that has not been accepted as holy writ by the Minister. We do not blame him at this stage for that because, as I said when I opened my remarks on the Amendment, we accept the policy of experimental committees in discipline.
Not all my hon. Friends accept it, but we have accepted that as part of an


understanding which we think should be adhered to, whatever one's private views may be. We do adhere to it, but we say that it was quite clear from these rather delphic words of Pearson that he wished to proceed cautiously, and so does the National Maritime Board.
The document says that the master should have the ultimate and sole responsibility for deciding the penalty. That is all that these Amendments seek to do. It is what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South forcefully urged in Committee and the Minister in columns 386 and 387 seemed to welcome this. Referring to my hon. Friend, he said that in his view the word
assist' could cover a division of function: that is, the disciplinary committee might decide the facts and the master might decide the fine. The word 'assist' in that sense is an exercise of power: if we decide on the facts—if we say that this man has done it—that is power. If the issue is a division of power on those lines it is open to whoever drafts the Regulations to do it in that way." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th February. 1970; c. 386.]
We wish to help the Minister to make that distinction by making clear in the Statute that that is what ought to be done in the regulations. I am sure that it should be done in that way. There is no doubt that there is an important difference in the law, which any lawyer knows, between finding a fact and deciding a penalty. It is the decision of the penalty which provokes the most amount of discussion, and perhaps the worst blood. We do not wish to see these committees bogged down by feuds which are likely to arise if rating is casting sentence upon rating.
There is no doubt that to be tried by one's fellow men is much more severe than to be tried by a judge since one's fellow men are more ruthless. Anyone who has appeared before professional committees will know that the fiercest tribunals are those composed of one's fellows. In the long term if the penalty is reserved to the master, it is likely to be more in the interests of the rating than if it is decided by a tribunal or committee or synod, whatever one choose to call it.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Gentleman did me the honour of quoting extensively from what I said in Committee. However, his quotation was not as

extensive as it might have been because he got a little tired when he got to the top of column 387 or he would have continued to quote what I said afterwards. I then went on to say:
… I do not want to prejudge the extensive consultations that must take place with industry before regulations are tabled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th February, 1970; c. 387.]
I thought that I was being helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee upstairs when I canvassed in an open-minded way possible forms such committees might take and I carefully chose to say, in case anybody thought I was imposing my views on the industry, that I did not wish to prejudge what might emerge from discussions. This is my reply tonight.
I feel that it is essential that these committees, which are a novel development in the history of the merchant fleet and an original departure from previous practice, need to be considered very carefully by the industry and by my Department. I do not want to prejudge the shape of things to come. We wish to consult the industry and to set up careful experiments and we do not want to be tied down by a special provision of this sort.
I repeat what I said in Committee. It may be that, after discussion and consultation, a division of function as between fact and fine, or however it is defined, may prove to be acceptable to all sides of the industry. We must see. Let us go on to consultation, and then frame the regulations as to composition and procedure in the light of what is said in the consultations.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I understand and have some sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the desire to consult. However, there seems to be a principle which should stand above all, and that is that the supreme authority of the master should not be eroded.
Earlier today, we heard a powerful contribution from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) which differed considerably from the views of the Treasury Bench. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman stand firm by the principle that on board ship it is the master's authority which must be supreme. The disciplinary function ultimately is that of imposing a penalty.
Therefore, we should not leave it to the industry to decide that that function could be exercised by a committee.
This House of Commons should stand by the principle that the master should be the supreme authority on board ship and we should lay down in the Statute that it is the master and only the master who should have power to declare any penalty.
Most of us are happy to go along with the idea of ship's disciplinary committees, but not the power to fine or im-

pose penalties. That should stay with the master. However, the Minister has made it clear that he is not prepared to accept that. In view of that, I can only ask my hon. Friends to declare their adherence to the principle that I have enunciated by joining me in the Division Lobby to vote in favour of our Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 166.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nott, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bulius, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Catheart)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl Of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
wall, Patrick


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walters, Dennis


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ward, Dame Irene


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Digby, Simon Wingfieid
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wiggin, Jerry


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Drayson, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodnutt, Mark


Elliot, Capt. walter (Carshalton)
Miscampbell, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper



Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fry, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Gibson-Watt, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter


Allen, Scholefield
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunn, James A.


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dun woody, Mrs- Gwyneth (Exeter)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Chapman, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Contan, Bernard
Ellis, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Beaney, Alan
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Finch, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Booth, Albert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Golding, John


Boston, Terence
Davits, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boyden, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dickens, James
Harper, Joseph


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dobson, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)




Haseldine, Norman
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Heffer, Erie S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rose, Paul


Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hooson, Emlyn
Marquand, David
Rowlands, E.


Horner, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John
Sheldon, Robert


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hynd, John
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Slater, Joseph


Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, Alfred (wythenshawe)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Moyle, Roland
summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Varley, Eric G.


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
page Derek (King's Lynn)
Wallace, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Luard, Evan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitaker, Ben


Lubbock, Eric
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McCann, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Pentland, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McElthone, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McGuire, Michael
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg



Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackie, John
Rankin, John
Mr. Neil McBride and


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Merchant Shipping Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 19, line 11, after 'by', insert 'members of'. —[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 18, at end insert:
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, I suggest that we take the following Amendments: No. 31, in page 19, line 18, at end insert:
(4) Regulations made under this section shall not be effective except after affirmative resolution of Parliament.
and No. 51, in page 45, line 13, after 'under', insert 'section 37 of this Act or'.

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) urged in Committee that the regulations made under this Clause should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. He was supported on both sides of the Committee. I undertook to examine this proposal. In fact, I indicated that I had great sympathy with what my hon. Friend was saying. I have examined it. I have tabled this Amendment which, I am sure, will commend itself to both sides of the House.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad, on this occasion, to agree with the Minister of State that the regulations should become effective only after an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The Minister's Amendment is a recognition of the fact that the whole idea of these ships' diciplinary committees is a completely new departure from anything that has ever gone before.
It is not too much to say that during all the centuries during which the British have depended for their safety and their prosperity upon sea power and overseas trade, the master has had disciplinary power in the last resort over all on board any British ship. If this system, which


has worked well, is to be changed at the request of the National Union of Seamen, with the other side of the industry, and particularly the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, having grave misgivings about it, and with the Pearson Report having decided on balance of advantages against it—not a delphic utterance, as has been said from this Front Bench, but a definite decision on balance of advantages—it is essential for Parliament to give approval for any regulations which might be made even for experimental committees.
If and when such regulations are presented to Parliament, it must be clear that they are for limited experiments only, as referred to in paragraph 296 of the Pearson Report, and not for general introduction of disciplinary committees as a matter of course.
As I think the House knows, Mr. Speaker, I am very much opposed to the Clause, and I hope to have the good fortune to catch your eye on Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I notice, but make no promise to the hon. and gallant Admiral.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39

PAYMENT OF FINES FOR DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 20, line 9, leave out 'the consolidated fund' and insert:
'a seamen's fund approved by the Board of Trade'.
Paragraph 297 of the Pearson Committee's Report says:
There was an attractive suggestion … that the fines should be paid over to seamen's charities. Unless this suggestion would contravene some important constitutional principle (of which we are not aware) we think it should be adopted.
That is a specific recommendation.
This suggestion would take some of the sting out of the infliction of a fine and, whatever the Government of the day, it could take the subject of fining seamen out of the political arena. I presume that the Minister has had time to consider this suggestion and to see

whether there are constitutional principles involved.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have a great deal of sympathy with this suggestion, as I said when the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) raised the matter in Committee. I have looked at it again with great sympathy, but I find that this could not be done without a specific provision, justified by the needs of the charity which is being supported by the State, because it would be a diversion of money from the State. The hon. and gallant Member quoted the Pearson Committee which found this an attractive suggestion, but thought that it should not be adopted if it contravened some important constitutional principle. Opinions may vary about the importance of the constitutional principle, but nevertheless it is a substantial one, that moneys shall not be diverted from the Consolidated Fund so that Parliament alone may decide how they shall be spent.
I regret having to make this reply to the hon. and gallant Member. However, having looked at the proposal very carefully, and taken the best advice I could—which is very good indeed—I think we would be ill-advised to proceed with this extremely well-intentioned and attractive Amendment.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have enormous sympathy with this Amendment.
I have been very much attracted by it. At one point I was tempted to think that we should throw our whole weight behind it, but here there is the thin end of the wedge. If we started with this, where would be the end in connection with disciplinary fines or fines imposed in the courts? The repercussions from accepting the Amendment, attractive though it is, could be difficult. Under the circumstances, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will think it right not to press the Amendment to a Division, but to withdraw it.
I think there is an idea here which should be further explored. I do not know whether it is possible in another place, with the great weight of legal advice which can be drawn on there, to think it wise to take a plunge which I certainly am not prepared on my own to take. I advise my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Dunn: I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this proposal again. There are industries in which there are fines for non-observance of discipline. I am under the impression that sums of money so obtained do not go to the Consolidated Fund. It may be that in another place this suggestion could be looked at. If so there may be no reason why there could not be an arrangement to examine this excellent and worthy cause, particularly for the men and ships with which we are concerned.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In view of what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench and the undertaking by the Minister to see if there is some way round the constitutional principle, because it is absurd to be hamstrung by a constitutional principle involving such sums of money when hon. Members on both sides of the House wish such a proposal to be adopted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SMUGGLING

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 20, line 30, leave out 'commits' and insert:
'is found in civil proceedings before a court in the United Kingdom to have committed'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House should discuss, also, Amendment No. 36.

Mr. Roberts: Following discussion of the Clause in Committee, I have looked at this matter again, particularly in the light of the very helpful comments of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). He drew attention to the difficulty which might be experienced in relation to convictions in foreign courts. I think that it would be right if we did not specify in the Clause convictions in criminal proceedings as an antecedent to liability for making good any loss or expense caused by the act of smuggling. It will in any case be necessary for civil proceedings to be taken in the United Kingdom in order to establish a claim for compensation.
I commend the Amendment to the House. If any hon. Member wants fur-

ther explanation of the argument behind the Amendment, I will give an explanation, although I do not say that I shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I suggested this in Committee. I expressed the Opposition's gratitude for the Minister's acceptance of this point. It is not every foreign court whose decision we would wish to accept automatically. That is the principle behind the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 36, in page 20, line 31, leave out from 'Kingdom' to 'he' in line 34.—(Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Clause 49

CREW'S KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 23, line 11, after 'of', insert: 'the master'.
The Clause deals with the crew's knowledge of English and their capacity to understand orders, either directly or through a third person. In Committee, we had an interesting discussion on this point. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) in his place; he produced some interesting examples of what could go wrong in circumstances where crews are taken on in foreign ports when they have little or no knowledge of seafaring and no knowledge of English. This has caused difficulties in the past, even where there is someone among them who can transmit orders effectively in English.
At present, the superintendent or proper officer in the foreign port is charged with ensuring that the ship does not sail if English is not properly understood by part of the crew. Earlier this evening we had a discussion as to how far there were suitable consuls and proper officers in foreign ports. It was generally recognised that in some cases they were not the right people to discharge this heavy responsibility.
The master is in the difficulty that the owners will obviously want to hasten the sailing of the ship and not have it delayed, because that is very expensive for them. It therefore seemed to us that we should write into the Bill a special responsibility for the master on his own


initiative to be able to delay the sailing. He is the person who will be responsible if anything goes wrong as a result of orders not being understood by foreigners.
It would, therefore, strengthen his position with the owners, whose main interest is to get the ship to sail, if we could authorise him in the Statute to delay the sailing of the ship.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I appreciate that the general purpose of the Amendment is to place an obligation on the master to ensure that the officers and crew should be able to communicate with one another, and to enable him to set in motion the remedies envisaged by this Clause. However, the Amendment would not achieve very much. The Clause is triggered off, as it were, by the action of a superintendent or proper officer, and this is not affected by the Amendment. If a master is dissatisfied with the linguistic capacity of his crew, he can, under the Clause as drafted, approach a superintendent or proper officer.
I undertook in Committee to examine the Clause in the light of our discussions. I have done so. I have discussed it with others. I am reasonably satisfied that the approach in the Clause is the best we can reasonably achieve. I regret, therefore, that I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman in his proposal.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope that the Minister of State will look at this question again. We, too, have made inquiries about it. The Clause is drawn on the supposition that a master has to be prevented from going to sea with a crew which does not speak English. I am reliably informed that, on occasions, the proper officer or superintendent is reluctant to take the necessary steps to detain the ship. The pressure, of course, is on the master from his employers to take the ship out. He is the one who knows that, if his crew does not understand English, difficulties may ensue, but he has not at present the authority to take the decision.
Our intention by the Amendment is to recognise that it may well be the master who is reluctant to take a ship to sea, and to write into the Bill that his opinion

can be given equal weight with that of the superintendent or proper officer. We do not wish to press the matter to a Division, but there is a point of substance here which it would be right to examine again.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I add a word, with the leave of the House? I am not unaware of the difficulties which may arise if something is not done. Whether this Amendment does enough is one consideration I have had in mind. I shall continue to think about the problem. If I take no initiative, I hope that it will be understood that I have not been able to find a better approach.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 53

INQUIRY INTO FITNESS OR CONDUCT OF OFFICER

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 24, line 42, leave out from "duties" to end of line 43.
We are dealing here with disqualifications and inquiries, and the words which we seek to delete are
whether by reason of incompetence of misconduct or for any other reason".
As we said in Committee, the word which we do not like is "incompetence". A charge could be made by the Board of Trade against an officer under subsection (1)(b) or (c), which are fairly wide in themselves, and the bandying about of the word "incompetence" is a serious matter.
Nowadays, trial by newspaper is rapidly being replaced by trial by television. Once it is bandied about that a certain officer is incompetent, it will be difficult for him to live it down. He is in a serious position in any case, because his certificate is suspended and his livelihood with it. If the charge is framed in this way, the hardship to him will be the greater.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) moved a similar Amendment in Committee. I explained, in reply, that the removal of the words
whether by reason of incompetence or misconduct or for any other reason


from subsection (1)(a) would have little effect other than of possibly causing some obscurity as to the ground of being
unfit to discharge his duties".
The ground would not be limited thereby.
I explained to the Committee that we have followed the recommendations in paragraph 192 of the Pearson Report as to the grounds for these inquiries. This means that we have added
any other reason",
by which we had in mind drug taking and mental illness, to the reasons now in Section 471 of the 1894 Act, namely, incompetence or misconduct.
I think that it is helpful to leave the references to incompetence and misconduct as well as to any other reason in interpreting what we mean by unfitness
to discharge his duties".
I do not think that there is any danger that
any other reason

will be read in a limited sense by virtue of its juxtaposition with incompetence or misconduct. The removal of any references to examples could raise doubts as to what is intended to be covered by the phrase
unfit to discharge his duties".
A certificate is issued as a safety measure, and the holder is regarded as fit to perform his duties so as to ensure the safety of the ship. Any defect which renders him unfit for any length of time, other than temporary illness or injury which removes him from duty, would endanger safety so long as he would continue to serve. It is thus desirable to be able to cover these possibilities.
I have carefully considered the matter. For the reasons I have given I am satisfied that the Amendment has little effect, and indeed is undesirable. I would prefer the Clause to go forward as it is. It would be more useful in that form. Therefore, I recommend the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 53

INQUIRY INTO FITNESS OR CONDUCT OF OFFICER

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in line 6, after 'may' insert:
'after giving notice in writing to such officer of their intention so to do'.
The point here is so obviously in accord with natural justice that I am sure that the Minister will spring to his feet after my second sentence and say that he will accept the Amendment. The Clause deals with inquiries into matters of unfitness to discharge duties, serious negligence, and so on.
All we ask is that the person who is in peril should have notice in writing of the Board of Trade's intention to hold an inquiry. It is very little to ask, and I hope that the Minister will instantly comply with our request.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: All I need say tonight is that I would like rather more time to consider the matter in detail. It is not quite as simple and instant—if I may use that word—as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I agree with the spirit of the Amendment. It is the Government's intention that the point should be covered, though possibly not quite in the way the Amendment proposes. I have not finished looking at the possibility of doing this under the rules as to the conduct of inquiries to be made by the Board of Trade under Clause 59.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will seek permission to withdraw his Amendment I shall try to ensure that the matter is dealt with before the Bill becomes law, or I will let him know.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I note that it is the Government's intention to concede the principle of the Amendment, and in the light of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 25, line 35, at end insert:
(6) Where the certificate of any officer is suspended pursuant to subsection (1) of this section and such suspension is subsequently terminated either under subsection (3) of this section or pursuant to the findings of any inquiry held under subsection (1) of this section, the court, upon the application of the officer, or the persons holding the inquiry, may order that compensation be paid to any such officer for any expenses or loss of earnings which he may have incurred, or any part thereof as the court or the persons holding the inquiry shall determine, and the decision of the court on such an application shall be final.
(7) Any such compensation ordered to be paid shall be paid by the Board of Trade out of moneys provided by Parliament.
The Amendment appears to us to raise important questions of principle and this is an occasion where we are praying in aid the Pearson Report when the Minister is going against it. We are dealing here still with inquiries into an officer's position. Subsection (4) provides for the cancellation of his certificate or, in the case of an uncertificated officer, for censure, which is a very serious matter in both cases for the rest of the officer's career. It also deals with costs and says that a report can be sent back by the inquiry.
Under subsection (5), the Board of Trade is empowered to recover certain moneys. But the fact remains that an officer who is cleared—and this does happen and is liable to happen in future—receives no compensation. This seems to us very unjust in the circumstances. A good deal of publicity will probably have attended the inquiry, particularly if it has been caused by a shipping casualty.
Paragraph 194 of the Pearson Report points out that the officer has been unjustly deprived of the opportunity of earning his livelihood and goes on to say that the only remedy is for the court to have discretionary power to indemnify the officer in respect of loss of earnings. That seems to us to be a very strong case. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was some objection in precedent about our proposal, but the fact remains that this situation is not on all fours with most inquiries of the kind. Shipping casualties attract a lot of attention in the Press and even on television and the officer concerned will be in a particularly difficult position even


when he is cleared. The least that can be done would be to compensate him for loss of earnings.
The officer has been trained as a seafarer and without his certificate he cannot practise his calling. I think that it is up to the Board of Trade to find a way of putting him back in some reasonable kind of position. He will suffer tremendous lass, including a loss of prestige. The least that can be expected is some compensation for loss of earnings where the Board of Trade has gone wrong and started an inquiry against an officer which was not in the event justified and he is cleared.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) speaks so persuasively that it grieves me to have to say that I do not find a way of accepting the Amendment. But I have every sympathy with what he says, and indicated as much in Committee. The Amendment would create an unfortunate precedent. I am advised that it is against the general principles of our legal system that a person—[Interruption.] It is not a proper comment on our legal system simply to say, "Dear, dear", in that tone of voice.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It was a friendly interjection, and it was "Be a devil for once."

Mr. Roberts: Very well! But the hon. and learned Gentleman might get more than he bargains for. I have been fairly kind to him this evening and I may decide at a later stage to have another change of heart and mind.
As I was saying, it would create an unfortunate precedent to accept the Amendment. It is against the general principles of our legal system that a person who is put in jeopardy by reason of his conduct being the subject of judicial inquiry is compensated for his loss of earnings if he is subsequently discharged as innocent. This is one of the ordinary hazards of life. It affects us all.
For instance, a person charged with a criminal offence may be suspended from his employment pending the trial; he may be put to the considerable inconvenience of finding bail; he may be remanded in custody. If he is ultimately acquitted, he may, at the court's discretion, be awarded costs against the prose-

cution, but there is no question of his being awarded compensation for loss of earnings, or for any inconvenience that he has suffered. In the comparable occupation of aviation, when certificates are suspended, no compensation is payable. There is no precedent for the Amendment, which would be contrary to current practice.
There is a further objection. If a court is given discretionary power to order compensation for loss of earnings, the order would have to relate to a liquidated sum. The persons holding the inquiry would have to determine the precise amount of the compensation, for it is basic principle that a court should not make an order for payment of an unliquidated sum. Ascertainment of the sum would be difficult and could well be the subject of dispute. It would lengthen the proceedings and would also be undesirable in that an inquiry of this kind would not be equipped to deal with such matters.
The main argument against the Amendment is in the first two objections which I tried to put, despite the interjection of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). There are substantial analogies, especially as between officers in the Merchant Navy and in civil aviation. I do not know how we could do what the Amendment suggests without transgressing some important principles which so far hold the field.

Mr. Horner: We are discussing the Merchant Navy and not civil aviation and someone has to make a start. I am disappointed with what my right hon. Friend has said. If the Board of Trade rightly reserves the power to prevent a man from following his profession because of alleged misconduct, or incompetence, or other reason, and an inquiry makes it clear that, while properly suspended, he was nevertheless unjustly suspended, in the sense that the charge against him was not proved, it is wholly reasonable that someone should compensate him.
There are many risks in following the profession of sea going, but this is one risk which we seek to reduce. A man's professional advancement may be endangered. He may undergo the humiliation of appearing before a court and the circumstances may be distressing for an


officer. If, at the end, he is upheld by the court, why cannot the court have the power to say that he should be compensated?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) has said most of what I would have said. One of the arguments I dislike most—and it may well be that I will find oneself on a future occasion having to advance it, but I still dislike it—is, "If I am just to this group of people, I shall have to be just to a whole lot of other people as well." That argument seems to have little merit, although the requirements of the Treasury, or something of that sort, may force one to use it.
However, here the Minister is on very weak ground. He mentioned the criminal law and said that if one were put in peril of trial, one might lose one's job. That is a peril to which we are all subject under the general law, and I accept the doctrine that it is one of the hazards of life. But the Merchant Navy officer has special risks and special responsibilities and a high duty, and these may appear to have been broken. If he is put on trial and deprived of his means of livelihood, but in the end cleared, he will have lost a great deal of money in the interim.
If we take the professions—barristers, solicitors, doctors—as far as I know there are no interlocutory proceedings in those professions. They are free to continue to practise until they have been found to be guilty of whatever offence it is by the appropriate body and been disbarred, suspended, unfrocked or whatever. The only other example which is in parallel is that of the air pilots. We ought to look at this principle as a whole because I do not believe that it exists as a principle. Here we have someone, not the man's employer, but some Govern-

ment Department stepping in and, in the interests of the public, saying that until that man has been cleared he is not to be allowed to go to sea. It is extremely hard that he should not be entitled to be recompensed out of public funds for the loss he has suffered if he is cleared.

I am prepared to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House unless the Minister is willing to have second thoughts.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Because my hon. Friend says that he intends to divide the House on this matter, and because I shall have to vote with the Government for the first time in my life if he does so, I feel that I must explain my action.
It seems that the objections raised by the Minister to this Amendment are quite conclusive. If we are to allow compensation to be paid in such circumstances, there can be no possible reason why we should not do the same in the ordinary courts of the land. It would make the administration of justice quite impossible if everyone who was acquitted was entitled to be compensated for any loss that he had sustained.
It ought to be remembered that not everyone who is acquitted is not guilty. All that has happened is that he has been found not guilty. If it were to be the law that everyone acquitted was entitled to be compensated for any loss that he had sustained it seems that there would be some awful abuses. It is something which we could not possibly contemplate. Since, if it is done in the one case there is no reason why it should not be done in the other, I must vote against this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 145.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[10.47 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Dodds Parker, Douglas


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Drayson, G. B.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Eden, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fair, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Crowder, F. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Fry, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dance, James
Gibson-Watt, David


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, Raymond




Grant, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hill, J. E. B.
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor Frank (Moss Side)


Holland, Philip
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hornby, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Horner, John
More, Jasper
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walters Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
whitelaw Rt. Hn William


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wiggin Jerry


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Wylie, N. R.


Kirk, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lane, David
Pym, Francis
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric


Allen, Scholefield
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Armstrong, Ernest
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. s.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Lawson, George
Roberta, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rose, Paul


Carmichael, Nell
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt, Hn, William


Concannon, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


Confan, Bernard
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lubbock, Eric
Shore Rt, Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Delargy, H. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taverne, Dick


Dunn, James A.
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Malialieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Watkins, Tuder (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Whitaker, Ben


Fitch, Alan (wigan)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winstanley Dr. M. P.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Biyth)
woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
woof, Robert


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Neil McBride.


Haseldine, Norman

Clause 57

FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO SHIPPING CASUALTY

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 27, line 34, leave out 'shipping'.

No. 42, in page 27, line 34, after 'casualty', insert:
under section 56 of this Act'.

No. 43, in page 28, line 11, after 'Act' insert:
'and, if it is a matter mentioned in pan graph (a) or (b) of that section, is further satisfied that it caused or contributed to the casualty'.—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Clause 62

INQUIRIES INTO DEATHS OF CREW MEMBERS AND OTHERS

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 30, line 11 leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and insert:
'make a copy of the report available—

(a) if the deceased person was employed in the ship and a person was named as his next of kin in the crew agreement or list of the crew in which the deceased person's name last appeared, to the person so named;
(b) in any case, to any person requesting it who appears to the Board of Trade to be interested.'

This Amendment meets points that were raised in Committee.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) was unable to stay, since it was he who raised this point in Committee. On his behalf I wish to express the gratitude of the Opposition on this Amendment put down by the Government which considerably improves the Clause.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I join with the hon. Gentleman in referring to his hon. Friend's initiative in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63

RELIEF AND RETURN OF SEAMEN LEFT BEHIND, ETC.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 31, line 31, at end insert:

(7) This section applies to a person left behind on being discharged in pursuance of section 6 of this Act, whether or not at the time he is left behind the ship is still registered in the United Kingdom.
There was considerable discussion of this matter in Committee on Clause 63. I gave certain undertakings and I think the terms of this Amendment will make our intentions clear to everybody's satisfaction.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR RELIEF AND RETURN, ETC.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 32, line 5, to leave out from 'employers' to end of line 9 and insert:
'If he proves that it was not a term of his employment that they were to be borne by him and that he was not left behind as a result of his own wrongful act or neglect'.
This was a matter dealt with in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) relating to the burden of proof in the recovery of expenses incurred for relief and return of seamen left behind.
A burdensome obligation is placed on owners concerning the return of seamen left behind in foreign ports. I say "burdensome" because it is much more so than under the laws of virtually any other country in the world. I will not go into that matter since it was discussed very fully in Committee. It is clear that the Bill does nothing to relieve the owners in the way in which foreign governments relieve owners by accepting responsibility for this considerable expense.
The exception provided by Clause 65(1) should be made more workable. The Clause says
Where any expenses are incurred in respect of any matter for which the employers of a seaman are required to make provision under section 63 of this Act, then if the expenses are incurred by the Board of Trade, or are incurred by the government of any country outside the United Kingdom and repaid to them on behalf of the Crown, the Board of Trade may recover them from the employers ".
We do not like that but we accept it. But then paragraph (b) says:
if the expenses are incurred by the seaman he may recover them from the employers unless they prove either that under the terms of his employment they were to be borne by


him or that he would not have been left behind but for his own wrongful act or neglect.
The owners have to prove that the man was left behind by his own wrongful act or neglect.
One has only to imagine the difficulties of proving that to see that the burden of proof is wrong. If a man is adrift in a foreign port, only he knows why. In the vast majority of cases the owners cannot possibly know why. If the man can show that it was not his fault, then the owners must pay. But it is a fundamental principle of the law of evidence that if something is within the knowledge of one person and without the knowledge of the other party, the burden of proof is on the person who knows and not upon the person who does not know.
This is an intolerable burden of proof to put on the owners. The burden of proof should be the other way round. If a seaman is left behind he should say and indeed should show that it is through no fault of his. The owners cannot possibly prove that it was his own wrongful act since only he knows what happened. The matter does not admit of very much expansion so I need say no more.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) moved a similar Amendment in Committee which we discussed at considerable length. As I explained then, Clause 65(1)(b) deals with the rather unlikely event that, after a seaman who is left behind reports himself to the ship's agent or the proper officer and consequently, as we envisage the regulations, the employer's liability to maintain him commences, he is left to look after himself or told to do so and incurs expenses which, under Clause 63, are the prime responsibility of the employer.
In that case, given that the seaman can show that he has incurred the expenses and that they come within the regulations, the employer is liable to repay him. The employer may have a claim against the seaman for the expense of discharging his responsibility under Clause 63 if there has been a breach of contract or if the terms of employment provide for it.
This is the employer's claim and in any proceedings for recovery by the seaman of his expenses, it should, in my view, be for the employer to prove his claim. The fact that the seaman has paid sums in circumstances in which, prima facie, they should be paid by the employer, should not, in my view, change the burden of proof in relation to claims under the seaman's contract or for breaches of it.
This is the position as we see it, and we think that it is just and equitable that the onus should be on the employer and not on the seaman in these circumstances. It was contended by hon. Members who supported the Amendment that, in effect, the matters to be proved were those peculiarly within the knowledge of the seaman. But this is not really so in all the cases covered by the Clause.
As the Clause now stands, they can escape liability if they can show that under the terms of his employment, these expenses were to be borne by him; in other words, if the contract provides accordingly. This can scarcely be a matter peculiarly within the seaman's knowledge. The other ground is if they can show that the seaman would not have been left behind but for his own wrongful act or omission. We do not envisage that a seaman will, under the regulations, be in a position to incur expenditure generally on his maintenance and repatriation without the knowledge or consent of his employer.
The kind of circumstances we have in mind are where an employer is aware of a seaman's whereabouts and position and fails to fulfil his obligations under the regulations. In my view, therefore, this is not really a point of great importance in practice and it would not impose an undue burden on the employer, although it may perhaps appear to do so in theory. I must, therefore, advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 69

OFFICIAL LOG BOOKS

Mr. Patrick Jeukin: I beg to move Amendment No. 46 in page 34,line 5, at end insert:
(3) The regulations shall provide for the entry in official log books of particulars (to be


specified in the regulations) of any complaint to the master or any officer by any member of the crew or by any passenger where the subject matter of the complaint would, if proved, amount to a criminal offence under the law of England or Scotland; and such regulations may prescribe that a separate section of the official log book shall be designated for the purpose of such entries.
Hon. Members who have taken part in our discussion so far will appreciate that this Amendment represents a return to a point which I have been making throughout, starting on Second Reading. It simply provides for the insertion in the log of complaints of criminal offences.
As hon. Members will be aware of the issue, I will not deal with the matter at length. Where a seaman or passenger on a ship makes a complaint of an action amounting to a criminal offence—for example, a complaint of assault—there is, under the present law, no specific obligation resting on the ship's master to record that complaint.
When the ship reaches its home port, it is open to the complainant to take the matter up with the police. However, that person could be in considerable difficulties in doing that, partly because there is no contemporaneous evidence of the complaint having been made and partly because those whose supporting evidence might be valuable in proceedings might find themselves having to deny that a complaint was ever made because they had attempted to hush it up.
All we seek to do here is to impose upon the master an obligation to record in the ship's log any complaints of this nature. In fact, we do not even go as far as that: we give the Board of Trade the power to make regulations to provide that this should be done, and to provide that there might be a separate section of the log in which such complaints could be entered.
I am encouraged to believe that this proposal may have Government support. When I raised the matter in the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
… there is a suggestion here which merits deeper consideration.
He referred in kind words to what I had said on Second Reading, which, he said
… impressed me at the time as an important contribution to our consideration of the Bill. Equally, one should look at what he has said today on the Amendment. I reiterate my present view, that administratively, the best

place for entry of any complaint of this nature is in the official log, bearing in mind that Clause 68 enables us to prescribe the form and, as it were, the categorisation, of the log to be kept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th January, 1970; c. 271.]
It is perfectly true, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will say this now, that under Clause 69, as it now is, he has power already to prescribe that complaints of this nature shall be included in the log, but I do not think that that is enough. This is an entry in the log of a very particular nature; an entry which a master might be tempted not to make unless there was some quite specific obligation on him to do so.
The Minister may be able to give us a specific undertaking that regulations of this sort will be included in the powers under the Bill and, coming from him, of course, we shall unhesitatingly accept it, but I make no bones about the fact that I would prefer to see it actually stated in the Bill so that it appears in the Act of Parliament, and is therefore one of the matters which, when officers and others are being trained and are learning the provisions of the legislation governing their profession, this provision will be brought specifically to their notice.
One cannot guarantee that a complaint of criminal activity or a criminal offence of a disreputable nature will not be hushed up. The most one can do is to try, by making it a specific obligation to record, to add pressure to see that it is not hushed up. As I said in the Committee, it seems best done by a provision in the Measure rather than by just leaving it in the regulations with nothing specific being said in the Measure itself.
That is the case for the Amendment as it stands. As a second best, I would be prepared to accept—though, as I say, I do not like it—an undertaking that this matter will be specifically and expressly dealt with by regulations which the Minister will already have power to make in the Bill as it stands. But I hope that he will feel able—if not now, perhaps in another place—to see something specifically and expressly put in the Bill itself.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: When this matter was raised in Committee, I said that it would be possible to provide in the regulations for a complaints section


in the official log. The hon. Gentleman now asks for an undertaking for precisely that requirement to be in the regulations. I hesitate to give an undertaking because I would not wish to prejudge the consultations between my Department and all sides of the industry on the question of the possibility of regulations.
My personal view is that as there are arguments against a separate log for complaints and other purposes the official log ought to include, as I said in Committee, a log within a log. A complaints log within the official log would seem to be a very good candidate. I would confidently expect that, in view of the discussion we have had, any regulations under this Clause would do this, but I am unable to give a guarantee that that would be done, even if I were there, or that any successor of mine would feel as I do.
In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to fob him off with a second best. Therefore we fall back on the requirement that there should be something in the Statute. This is an important matter—in his view and perhaps in the view of most people, the most important aspect—of what is officially recorded on board, although as soon as one says that certain doubts and queries come to mind; complaints obviously would commend themselves as extremely important to most of us, but there are other things.
The question is whether the hon. Gentleman is content when I say that I am confident that when these regulations are discussed and formulated this will be done. I produced a copy of an official log and brandished it before the Committee, indicating its mechanics which are perhaps better known to some hon. Members. This still seems the right way to do this. Once we start to give priority to certain entries in logs, we may have a proliferation of records, which are best kept together.
I am sorry that I cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asked. I would hope that the extent to which I have been able to go may perhaps induce him to withdraw the Amendment. I know how deeply he feels about this matter, and I share his views and feelings about it, but I remain of the view that the mechanics of the Amendment

are already covered by the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman on reflection may agree to let the Clause go forward as it is.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He has not gone so far as I asked him to go but perhaps as far as he could go under the terms of reference he imposed on himself and his obligation to consult on all these matters with the people in the industry. The peg on which I hang all this is the proposition that it is the duty of the master of a ship to uphold the English law, or Scottish law as the case may be, wherever that ship may be, unless it is in the territorial waters of another country, in which case it is within the jurisdiction of that country's courts. That high-sounding principle comes down to the act of recording complaints about criminal offences in the log.
I am much more concerned about the nature of matters which are required to go into the log, whether it is a separate log or not. That is a matter of mechanics, but somewhere in the Bill preferably or in regulations if need be there should be a specific obligation on the master to record in the logs. I read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in Committee and I interpreted it as also accepting that proposition. I hope that he will use his best endeavours to see that this is put in. It is of considerable importance to those who have the best interests of the rule of law at sea at heart who have advised me that there have been occasions when this has fallen below the usual high standards because there was no specific obligation to record.
I do not think I should labour the matter more and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76

ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE AND INSPECTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 38, leave out line 18 and insert:
regulations made under section 20 of this Act".


This is essentially a consequential Amendment and relates to the documents which are made admissible in evidence and open to public inspection under the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93

NON-SEA-GOING SHIPS

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 43, line 42, after "sections" insert "20".

No. 49, in line 42, after "61" insert "and 88".—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Clause 96

REGULATIONS AND RULES

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 45, line 13, after 'under' insert:
'section 37 of this Act or'.—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Clause 97

AMENDMENTS, SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 45, line 26, at end insert:
(3) The enactments specified in Schedule 4 to this Act (which include some which are obsolete and some not affected by the preceding provisions of this Act) are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Schedule 1

FISHING VESSELS

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 46, line 25, at end insert:
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may apply section 33 of this Act with such modifications as may be required to substitute in it for the reference to section 30, 31(b) and 31(c) of this Act a reference to the corresponding provisions of the regulations.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) drew the Committee's attention to the fact that paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 does not enable regula-

tions about offences in fishing vessels to apply to stowaways and to seamen conveyed in such ships in the same manner that Clause 33 applies Clauses 28, 30, 31(b) and 31(c) to such persons in merchant ships. I think that what we are doing in the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 54, in page 47, line 9, leave out from 'officer' to end of line 12.

No. 55, in line 18, leave out subparagraph (3).—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent signified.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
It is only a little over three months since my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stood here to move the Second Reading of the Bill. For a Measure of this size and importance to pass through its Committee and Report stages in so few weeks, especially when it is remembered that the Christmas Recess of one month has intervened, is, I think that the House will agree, a remarkable achievement. Members of the Standing Committee can rightly congratulate themselves. The Bill received a gratifyingly smooth passage in Committee. It has been fitted out with two new Clauses and many blemishes in the paintwork have been re-touched where they were pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
It may well be that the vessel shall receive a further refit in another place, but the gleaming modern structure before us now is already an immeasurable improvement on the creaking timbers of the 1894 Act.
It is, I think, largely as a result of the expert and seamanlike attitude of all members who have contributed to the work on this Bill that we have made such tremendous progress. The proceedings have taken place in a spirit of mutual confidence which has certainly made the work a pleasure to me and which has, I think, helped all the hon. Gentlemen to stay the course. It is because we all have the best interests of our seamen, their employers and their families at heart that we have been able to discuss


their problems openly, fully and, above all, sympathetically. We have all done our best to meet the claims upon us of all sections of the industry, to see that all legitimate interests have been protected. It is not always a good idea to try to be all things to all men, but I think we can say that we have managed to be many good things to very many good men in this Bill.
The Merchant Shipping Acts have long been a subject of discontent on all sides of the industry. I hope that they will now cease to be a subject of discontent, even if they continue to be the subject of some argument. Both seamen and shipowners have felt hampered by their provisions in their efforts to modernise the industry and improve its efficiency. The Pearson Report was accepted by the industry after its publication as being a sound and equitable basis on which to revise the merchant shipping legislation. To an exceptional degree, the recommendations of the report have been implemented in the Bill after long discussion with all parties concerned.
We have been fortunate in having the report of an impartial inquiry as the foundation stone of this legislation—legislation which all parties can, therefore, recognise as being to the benefit of the industry as a whole and of all those men who work in it. A Measure embracing such a variety of people as this is, of course, bound to appear more attractive in some of its parts than in others according to the point of view from which it is seen. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said so ably earlier this evening, the Bill represented the highest common factor of agreement and as such was well worth getting and implementing. Not everybody got everything, but I think that everybody got something, and that something was very substantial indeed.
This is a varied industry. It includes shipowners and shippers, trade unions and associations. The M.N.A.O.A. and other officers' associations together represent about 45 per cent. of the seafarers engaged in this industry in the United Kingdom. We should pause and ponder over this fact, which I regard as a most encouraging fact—the gradual increase in the percentage of the seafaring labour force which one can fairly describe as being specialised and coming within the

category of officers. This is the nature of the labour force. We are not today dealing with an industry in the 19th century sense of a mass of downtrodden and driven wage slaves fighting a small group of rapacious employers. We are dealing with an industry which is modernising itself in regard to its manpower and methods of training and recruitment as well as its methods of operation on board ship.
We have done our best to reconcile all the interests involved in the industry. As I have said, the Bill represents the highest common level of agreement possible. But the balance of advantages has been established both by Pearson and, subsequently, by the abundant discussions which took place, and all parties have declared themselves, in the main, well pleased.
As my right hon. Friend said at Second Reading, the Pearson Report called for a new Bill which would jettison many obsolete provisions and much unnecessary detail. It recommended that the Bill should be designed to deal with matters broadly by principle and policy and to foster and not to inhibit future developments, and that the details and administration should be left to regulations made under the Bill. While this is, of course, a wise and prudent way of ensuring future flexibility, it was, I think quite rightly, pointed out that, in spite of the safeguards of consultation and of parliamentary approval by negative or affirmative resolution, it would be wrong to expect hon. Members to pass the enabling Clauses without having some idea of the measures envisaged. The Committee stage in particular has helped us to clarify many of these doubts, both in the indication of the possible eventual contents of the regulations which I made available to members of the Committee and also in the verbal assurances which I have been able to give.
I should, perhaps, point out in this connection that, in response to the general feeling expressed in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), the affirmative Resolution procedure has been adopted for the regulations relating to disciplinary committees. I think that this change, although it admittedly places a further strain on the already crowded parliamentary timetable, is justified in view of the novel nature of this provision.


I join hon. Gentlemen opposite in regarding this in some ways as the most important provision in the Bill. I do not say that I share to the full their anxieties and apprehensions about the dangers of this innovation. I am an optimist in this. I believe that if we have carefully selected and promoted experimentation we shall find that the industry will be coming to our doors and asking that the extension of the committee principle shall be made as quickly and as widely as possible. It would be impossible for me to list all the separate subjects to which contributions have been made in the progress of this Bill so far without spending a great deal of time on them. I would, however, like to remind the House of some of the more important ones.
The paramount consideration when one is dealing with employment at sea is that of safety, and this has been stressed repeatedly both in Committee and here on the Floor of the House, and in proper, legitimate and necessary discussions we have held outside. The most obvious contribution to the Bill itself has been the addition of the new Clause on safety regulations which it was decided to add in the light of the views expressed in the Committee. Much work is being done on safety both in this country and internationally, and it would have been a grave omission if we had not taken the opportunity which the Bill offered of enabling us to implement any moves towards greater safety which are likely to arise in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) made a worthy contribution to this important aspect of the Bill.
As has also been said many times during the progress so far, an important contribution to safety is the maintenance of good order and discipline. It is not only high winds and stormy weather which can put a ship at risk; there is as much danger, or perhaps more, if the crew of a ship cannot be relied upon to respect the word of the master and to carry out their duties efficiently. Much must, of course, depend on the personality of the master. But his authority must have behind it the force of the law, which has, as it were, a power to create passively a climate of order and discipline aboard ship which is in many ways more important than the ultimate sanctions which the Clauses carry with them.
I do not think I need comment on the interesting and stimulating debate which we have had on the so-called penal Clauses, except to say this. There is an argument for retaining in a Bill Clauses which are unlikely to be invoked except in a very small minority of cases. In fact, this is the position now as regards the disciplinary provisions which have come down to us from 1894, and all that.
It is a matter of judgment—and judgment by all sides of the industry, not just by the employers, by the way, because we deal with associations which are not employers but which represent as much participatory workers in the industry as the members of the unions which we have heard mentioned. It is, as I say, a matter of judgment how far and how fast one can go in jettisoning what one might call a long-stop deterrent. There is virtue in this in relation to discipline at sea and the maintenance of safety, to which in a paramount way discipline is directed.
As I see it, the Bill as a whole turns on the new provision for disciplinary committees and the operation of discipline and sanction by the master and committee in relation to each other, however this may be decided on, so that we can reasonably hope that almost all offences will be dealt with on board ship by the master, assisted in the way we have tried to describe, by representatives of his crew. The exceptions will be those coming within the scope of Clauses 29, 30, 31 and so on, and Clause 28, too, and they are the cases which everyone reasonably agrees must inevitably proceed under the terms of those Clauses.
As I see it, that is the situation the emergence of which is made possible by the Bill. I shall say no more on that aspect of the matter. I think that we have reached a reasonable consensus on it today, and the Bill will become law with something of the same unanimous enthusiasm with which it was first greeted.
This Merchant Shipping Bill is not the end of the road. The 1894 Act was succeeded by other Merchant Shipping Acts, and the same will, no doubt, be true of the present Bill. The disciplinary provisions are right and necessary for the present time, but circumstances can change. We all hope that they will change in such a way that some succeeding enactment may well jettison provisions of this Bill of which we are rightly


proud. For instance, what happens to the old Clause 2 crew agreements? I think that we all look forward to the time when crew agreements in the form in which we have discussed them and provided for them in the Bill will not be necessary. The same will happen with other provisions. This is not the last word. No Bill ever is. Circumstances, and the maturity of relationship of thinking, and attitude, lead to fresh enactments from time to time. We shall look ahead in this matter. There may be a later Merchant Shipping Bill which will do a number of things in regard to this Bill because circumstances have changed in the meantime.
I have listened with the greatest sympathy to all the arguments put forward in Committee for improving further the conditions of seamen. It is a fact that almost all seamen, with only a very minute number of exceptions, are paid the full amount of wages due to them on discharge. It does happen very occAs Ionally, however, that this is for some reason impossible, and it is most important that the seaman or his family should not suffer from this. On reflection, after listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), who made a very fine contribution to our discussions of this important matter in Committee, I came to the conclusion that £30, the minimum originally proposed, was too small and that £50 fitted the position best. Equally, we thought that the provision of a floor of one-quarter of what was due would provide the flexibility which my hon. Friend thought was best provided by regulations. It is a matter of judgment. I found his proposal attractive but on balance thought that we should pick up one of the good provisions of the 1894 Act and that normally the provision for a floor of one-quarter was the right thing to do.
I have considered the points made about breaches of contract under Clause 10 and we have amended the Bill to restrict the seaman's liability to suppression of wages to breaches only of his current crew agreement. This was greeted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) with satisfaction.
It was argued in Committee by hon. Members on both sides that, where a man

was unemployed or left stranded abroad, or both, as a result of his ship's relinquishing its United Kingdom registration, he was entitled to some safeguards. Accordingly, we have amended the Bill to ensure that a seaman in this unfortunate position will be entitled to two months' wages and to maintenance and repatriation by the owner of the ship.
Further, it was felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) in particular that the regulations relating to disciplinary committees should be made subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and I was glad to accede because I knew that both sides of the Committee agreed with him and, indeed, with me that this was the right thing to do.
The Bill represents an essential measure of modernisation and is indeed most necessary. It will do much to improve the conditions of seafarers in the British merchant fleet. The Bill has been improved in Committee and by the House on Report. A number of most useful Amendments, contributed from both sides, have been incorporated. The result is a Bill which, while it may not please everyone in all its details, is nevertheless the result of a balanced and general consensus. It is based upon the Pearson Report, not in every detail because the House has introduced some modifications. But nevertheless, broadly speaking, it remains true to say that the Bill is based upon Pearson and it should therefore be generally acceptable to all the various bodies in the shipping industry. Moreover, it contains great benefits for the fishing industry also.
The Bill is mainly an enabling Measure and a considerable number of regulations will have to be made under it. This will represent a formidable task for my Department. However, I hope that the details which will eventually be contained in these regulations will, like the Bill, be acceptable to all sides of the industry. We have rightly provided in Clause 96 that the regulations will come before Parliament on either the negative or affirmative Resolution procedure and, more important, that they will be drafted after consultation with both sides of the shipping and fishing industries as appropriate.
The Bill is a Measure of which the House and the country can well be


proud. As I have said, it is not the last word on the subject. We shall watch its implementation closely. If in due time it proves necessary to legislate again on some of these provisions, it will be all the easier to do so because so much will already have been achieved in this Bill and because whoever succeeds us in consideration of these matters will look back to Second Reading, Committee and Report stages for inspiration for how to turn a Committee of the House and the House itself into a working group striving to attain a common objective.

11.42 p.m

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The right hon. Gentleman has given an admirable summary of the Bill and of our deliberations. It has been a complicated Bill and much work has been put into it, not only by the right hon. Gentleman himself but by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can say in justification that we have improved it. It is not our intention to oppose the Third Reading. In fact, we give the Bill a qualified welcome and feel that we have done something towards its improvement.
It has taken a long time to get it through Committee—14 meetings of the Standing Committee to consider its detail and complications—but we have been able to get down to brass tacks—if I may use that expression—fairly well. This has been for three reasons. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was soundly based on the Pearson Report. I have seen many reports, but few have stood up to detailed examination in Committee better than the Pearson Report. It is only right to take this occasion to express our appreciation to Lord Pearson and his Committee for their valuable work. They provided valuable guide lines for our deliberations in Committee.
Secondly, we have been aided by the fact that there was a large measure of prior agreement within the industry about these provisions. Had there not been, it would have been extraordinarily difficult to discuss many of the points which we had to discuss and to reach sensible agreements. Thirdly but not least, it is, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised an enabling Bill, perhaps rather more so than some of the constitutional purists among us would like, but in the circumstances it is difficult to see how else it

could have been done in order to provide adequately for the future in changing times.
The Bill has a long history. It had a long gestation and we have had the additional complication of having to look at the July Bill and the October Bill before we could sensibly discuss any of the suggested Amendments. The long delays between the time the Bill was announced and the time when it was printed not unnaturally led to certain suspicions, which, happily, have been only partially justified in the event. I hope that the conversations behind the scenes helped in the long run.
The Minister of State has been tactful, a patient pilot aware of the shoals to port and starboard, or should I say to left and right, and with good humour and extreme patience and understanding, he has achieved a great deal. It always means much to the Opposition to see that a Minister is trying hard to appreciate what they have in mind, for they do not have the advantage of professional advisers, as have the Government.
We believe that on this occasion we have proved to be a constructive Opposition. It was a good-humoured Committee stage. Perhaps in this we were helped by the fact that both sides of the House have shipping committees which frequently meet as far afield as Southampton Water and the Clyde. Members know each other better than if the only contacts were across the Floor of the House. There have at times been a little ground swell, owing to storms in the outer distances, outside this House. On the whole it is remarkable how well we have kept our good humour.
One problem is that this is a changing industry. It is difficult to see the way in which it is going, with ships both large and small. I see that orders were placed in Belfast the other day for tankers of over 260,000 tons. That, we are told, is nowhere near the limit. These ships are managed by smaller and smaller crews, with great responsibility placed on the masters and men. We also have the fairly new problem that despite these changes the turnover among the seamen has been very much more rapid than before. This creates problems because men are no longer so willing to devote a lifetime to the sea.
The difficulty of foreseeing future problems is the main justification for allowing so much to be done by regulation. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that we shall hold the Board of Trade accountable, to produce these regulations quickly and with the utmost care. Parliament is jealous of its rights and we are underwriting with Parliamentary authority these various provisions yet we are not at all sure what we are really underwriting. We are however grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us some idea of the kind of points likely to be covered by the regulations, although of necessity, we did not get a lot of the answers we wanted. There have been points of controversy. The disciplinary Clauses in the Bill was one such point, although it did not give rise to so much controversy as it might have done. We live in days of great hazards for shipping—the "Torrey Canyon" and the explosions in the tanker in the Mozambique Channel remind us of this.
Pearson reminded us of the increased dangers of smoking in these giant tankers, and it appears that we do not really know as much as we thought we did some time ago. It appears that these explosions are not easy to account for. In the circumstances it is important from the point of view of this side of the House that the authority of the master should not be eroded for the safety of the ship and those who sail in her. We see a danger of this happening in these days when authority is more easily questioned than in the past. The endangering of a ship and its crew can be done without realising what is happening. With these modern techniques the dangers are perhaps greater than they were.
When we come to ship disciplinary committees it is a little hard for us to envisage how they will work out. We very much hope that they will be tried as an experiment and a certain amount of caution will be used about where they are started. We know some details about how it is proposed they should be run, with this rota of officers and ratings. It is to be an alphabetical rota and I wonder whether the " A "s will not become rather good seamen's lawyers. I also wonder whether, if certain people come up on the rota, hard-pressed masters will be more reluctant to call the committee. We are anxious lest hard-pressed

masters, who have great responsibilities, have an extra burden placed upon them because the disciplinary committees do not approach their tasks in the right way.
One or two hon. Members opposite were confident that those appointed to the committees would approach their task with great responsibility, and I certainly hope that that will be the case. The Board of Trade, in framing its regulations, must be prepared to learn how best these disciplinary committees should be run. It may be even that their composition will have to be a little different from what was envisaged by the Maritime Board.
We have had discussion on the fishing fleet and its special circumstances. Details about this have been left considerably to the regulations. There is, therefore, an even greater responsibility for the Board of Trade here.
As has been recognised, but we have not said much about it in these debates, the right to strike after 48 hours in port is an important innovation. Mr. Hogarth has welcomed it as a development of far-reaching importance. It is part of the package and we shall wait to see how that works out in practice and whether it operates for the benefit of the industry. It must not be forgotten that the owners have a difficult task to perform in these days of acute competition, and they have an important part to play for the nation in earning foreign exchange.
We touched on a number of other problems. I was not very happy that the way in which we left the question of payment of wages on discharge was particularly technological or modern and that we may not have to think again about that. The idea of calculating just before a ship reaches port seems rather strange in modern days. In large ships with a large staff, like passenger liners, it is understandable, but in the case of smaller ships it seems to me to be something that is rather old-fashioned that will have to be looked at again before many years are out.
The question of safety is extremely important and I am glad to know that because of the initiative of the Federation there is already progress in safety measures and the appointment of safety officers. The Minister was right in saying how pleased he was that we had been


able to insert into the Bill a new Clause dealing with safety measures. As I have said previously, there are so many accidents these days that this obviously merits special attention.
I am still not quite happy about inquiries into shipping casualties and the effect on officers' careers, because so much publicity attends any casualty today. We have only to think of the notice that was taken of the "Torrey Canyon". I served on the Select Committee which looked into that case, and the amount of literature which was churned out about it was quite extraordinary.
There is a special responsibility on the Board of Trade because it has seen fit to take, and the House has accorded to it, so many powers to make regulations. I hope that the Department will not feel that there is no urgency about this matter once the Bill is passed. There is great urgency to press on with this work, even if it may place a special strain on the Department. Many very large ships are sailing the seas with extraordinarily small crews. The work has changed a great deal, and this must be taken fully into account.
Above all, however, both sides of the industry must co-operate if we are to compete with flags of convenience and nationalism in ship-owning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has at last recognised the enormous importance of invisable earnings, and particularly the invisible earnings of the shipping industry. It is essential that the industry should try to get together and continue this co-operation so that the new Act comes into effect without friction.
Finally, from this side of the House, I should like to pay a tribute to all seamen in British ships who have served our island home so well in war and in peace. They are well deserving of the little time and attention that we have devoted to them in recent weeks in Parliament.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: May I follow the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) in what he has said about safety. I do not think that any hon. Member disagrees about the paramount importance of safety, or about the ultimate responsibility of the captain for the safety of the crew and the pas-

sengers. Quite properly, the keynote of all our debates has been the paramount importance of the safety of people, whether seamen, fishermen or passengers. That was why there was little debate on the major Clause which dealt with this subject.
May I also join the hon. Gentleman in thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his patience and good humour throughout the protracted passage of the Bill. The Minister, as the first man in his Department, made a splendid speech in launching the Bill, and it was left to other Ministers in the Department to sit in Committee on two mornings a week and go through the Bill Clause by Clause, argument by argument. It is right that we should join with the hon. Gentleman in appreciating what my right hon. Friend has done to try to meet the points which have been raised on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend paid great courtesy and consideration to the Committee when he sent to it the draft headings of the regulations which it was proposed to introduce under the Bill. Although, obviously, we could not know how every "i" was to be dotted and every "t" crossed, at least we had an inkling of what was proposed. I do not know whether this has ever happened in the past, but it was of great help to the Committee. When the regulations come before the House we shall look at them carefully, but nevertheless we have had this opportunity of knowing in advance what was in my right hon. Friend's mind.
The Bill is of considerable value to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), as we both have a considerable number of constituents who are fishermen. It is an extremely good Bill which goes a long way towards adopting an attitude towards industrial relations which, after the statement of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary earlier today, I hope will become the keynote to industrial relations in the industry. The Bill is a tremendous step forward, and is appreciated as such by many of my constituents and neighbours who are in the fishing industry. Granted we have not got everything—it is a lucky man who will always get everything—but we have got a considerable part of what


we wanted, and the Bill is to be strongly commended for that reason.
May I also thank my right hon. Friend for what we have achieved on the affirmative Resolution procedure. He rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) for the part he played in this. It is necessary that Parliament should deal with the matter in such a way as to ensure that these new problems can be given careful examination when they arise.
Although we may differ on some of the points made by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the nature of the new disciplinary committees on board ship, nevertheless it is right that we in Parliament should keep an eye on them. I do not, however, regard them with quite the same amount of caution as do hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel that because of the responsibilities placed on the men in the industry they will rise to the occasion. Nothing helps people better than to have a degree of responsibility given to them. We all know how successful shipboard liaison committees have been in the Merchant Navy and we also know how embryonic shipboard relationships have grown up and have helped in the relationship with the ship's captain. We can look to the future with a considerable degree of confidence.
I share the concern which has been expressed about the large turnover of crews. One hopes that the new charter set out in the Bill and the new attitudes which are permeating the industry, as well as some of the changes that have taken place in industrial agreements within the industry, will ease many of the stresses and strains upon seafaring men. Many trawlermen are away for periods of up to sixteen weeks before they return to their home port and men in the merchant marine are away for much longer periods. It is hoped that with the improvements which will result from the Bill and the attitudes which will permeate the industry, there will not be the rapid turnover in the supply of labour which has occurred in the past. The sea will always have a great attraction for our people, and for those who go to sea some of the difficulties involved in life at sea may be lessened.
I have one point which I should like to raise with my right hon. Friend. It relates to the strike clause and the four hours' notice point. As I read the Clause, once 48 hours' notice has been given that is sufficient. But it has been pointed out to me that once a ship has been safely moored and the 48 hours notice has been given, what would happen if the order is given for the ship to be put to sea? My interpretation of this situation is that if it ever came to court, which I very much doubt, it would be thrown out because it would be seen as a way of trying to evade statutory responsibility. I wonder if my right hon. Friend would deal with this matter since it has not been raised either on Committee or Report.
I said on Second Reading that this was a good Bill and it could perhaps become a great Bill. It is now a considerably better Bill. I would have no hesitation in commending the Bill to my constituents.
I said on Second Reading that those who live in, and hon. Members who represent, ports had always had three grievances. One was the casual nature of dock labour, the second was our desire to have the ports taken into public ownership, and the third was our desire to have a radical reorganisation and alteration of the Merchant Shipping Acts.
The first we got way back in 1966. The second is now under consideration in Committee. As for the third, this Measure will soon be on its way to the House of Lords. Those who live and work in port areas, whether they earn their living on the sea or in industries connected with the sea, have a lot to say in favour of the Government under Labour. I am pleased to welcome what I regard as a much better Bill.

12.5 a.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is a good Bill and few things are more important than having our Merchant Navy in good shape. At this late hour I will be brief, especially since a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
I wish to make it clear at the outset, without mincing words, that the so-called penal Clauses should remain in the body of the Bill, and everybody knows that.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should speak for himself.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Unfortunately, at the last ditch the Government seem to have refused to stand by what they said they would do, for they have thrown the onus back on to the industry; and if the employers are expected to stand firm against what is a major departure from Pearson, they obviously risk the threat of industrial action being taken against them, with consequent damage to both sides of the industry and to the nation. I fear that this will be seen as a weak-kneed performance by a weak-kneed Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
On a wider scale, it is a regrettable manifestation of the current trend to diminish the restraints of discipline in any shape or form, and hon. Members will agree that a seagoing ship is the last place where this trend should be manifested.

Mr. Harold Walker: I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy. Is not discipline in that Service governed by regulations? Incidentally, did I hear him say "we the employers"? In other words, does he wish to declare an interest?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Minister must have misunderstood me, and I do not think I used the word "we" in that context. As for the Royal Navy, on Second Reading I paid tribute to the way in which the masters of merchant vessels manage to exert their influence in ships by the force of their personalities with the minimum of regulations and legal restraints.
I am very much opposed to the inclusion of Clause 37—disciplinary committees—what the Minister described as perhaps the most important part of the Bill. I do not want to sound obsessional about this, but there are some things which float by on the sea of legislation which, when one is in opposition, stick in one's gullett simply because one believes them to be wrong, and for no other reason.
First and foremost, the disciplinary committees must inevitably diminish the authority of the master; and, as any seaman knows, a weak master means an unhappy ship. We should not, by Statute, create weak masters, and thereby create unhappy ships.
There are already two new safeguards in the idea of the "seaman's friend" and the right of appeal from a decision of the master. These are two useful safeguards and there is no conflict between the two sides of the House about them. They should be given a fair chance to work properly and they should certainly not be tried out under the shadow of the introduction of ships' disciplinary committees.
I believe, also, that the disciplinary committees will, in practice, be liable to lead to industrial unrest on board, for reasons which were very well summarised in paragraph 295 of the Pearson Report, which states:
There would be a danger of serious difficulties arising.
I will not read the whole of that paragraph, but it should be read very carefully by anyone who is considering the subject at all seriously. Paragraph 296 states:
On a balance of considerations we think the jurisdiction should, for the time being at any rate, remain vested in the master …
That is a clearcut and not a delphic utterance.
What has also been very clearly brought out is that these committees will tend to make mountains out of molehills, and magnify minor offences out of all proportion—and we are only talking of minor offences. I believe that the vast majority of seamen would rather be dealt with by the master and have done with it, and not have some little peccadillo of theirs noised about the ship through the whole paraphernalia of calling together the disciplinary committee. In practice, I think that the disciplinary committees will prove terribly difficult to work. A further point, dealt with by the Minister in Committee but not mentioned since, is the difficulty arising in mixed crews and the application of the Race Relations Act.
I have earlier paid a tribute to masters, as have many other hon. Members. I think that it is quite wrong to whittle away their already small disciplinary powers to vanishing point. I do not believe that the "silent majority" of experienced and long-term seagoing men want this disciplinary committee idea. They want, as the Minister said, to look forward in a modern industry, and not backwards to "Battleship Potemkin."
Anything which the Bill does to remove aspects of life in the Merchant Navy which are bad is to be welcomed, and I end by imploring the Government not to remove one of the good things, which is the power, the authority and influence of, and the respect for, the master.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Dunn: I, too, welcome the arrival of the Bill at the destination which the House once set itself. I join with those who have paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but it would be right at this stage to say that co-operation is a twofold thing, and that the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) both made very telling contributions to that co-operation, without which the Bill might not have arrived tonight in such an acceptable form.
But, while hon. Members can congratulate themselves on an achievement, we ought to resolve that never again shall the House get into a state of complacency in this matter. For far too long the problem has lived with us, and for far too long have we been unable to deal with it because of complications which were almost impossible to clear up without consultation. We should make up our minds that from this day forward consultation and review shall be a continuing thing, because the hazards at sea are of a changing pattern because of new and emerging demands made upon those who go to sea and sail these ships.
I do not, with respect, follow the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in what he has said about discipline. People should be encouraged to discipline themselves. I look forward to the day when, in a future Merchant Shipping Bill, it will no longer he necessary to include penal provisions. When that day arrives, the shipping industry will have come of age. There are reservations and I respect them, but unless we make a sincere attempt to overcome some of the problems of the unnecessarily rigid discipline of the past, we shall not develop successfully in future.
For a long time there have been serious attempts to solve great problems concerning non-payment of seamen. I

hope that the House will keep under continual review what happens in those circumstances. I hope hon. Members will agree that when a seaman is not paid his just due after undergoing the arduous. challenging and hazardous life at sea, he is entitled to ask for all that is due to him. We should hunt out anyone who does not discharge his obligations with honour. We should decide whether these scavengers—I use the word advisedly—should remain in the industry.
I hope this Bill will be the forerunner of many more of its kind. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had of being associated with all, from both sides of the House, who have worked on it. I was delighted to work with my hon. Friends in the Committee. This has been an experience which will remain with me forever and a day.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Despite the jeremiad of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), this is an historic occAs Ion for hon. Members, who, like me, represent great seaports.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is turning the clock forward with a vengeance, because the last such Act was passed in 1894. We moved a long way forward in the 12 or 14 weeks that the Bill was in Committee. Some appear to forget that this Bill deals not only with seamen but also with fishermen. I looked at the clock when I first heard the word "fishing" spoken in the debate. The time was 11.14 p.m. I heard it again at 11.40. This Bill is a fishermen's charter. It is very important to the people I represent in the largest fishing port in the United Kingdom and to the thousands of ancillary workers such as the bobbers on the dockside.
It is a very good Bill. Listening to the Report stage four or five hours ago, I was not sure that we were debating the same Bill that we began to discuss on 2nd December. The fishermen have no complaints about it. I cannot imagine the Transport and General Workers Union sending me a circular about it.
I want to speak of my appreciation of the Minister. He knows that I do not believe in sycophantic adulation, but in twenty years in which I have been in the House, off and on, I do not recall another


Miinster who has been so courteous and so accessible to his back benchers. He said that everyone got something in this Bill. We who have sat behind him have got something from him. He has been a veritable Santa Claus. The industry has got most out of him. We tend to forget that there was a mark 1 Bill. I know of no other Minister who has had a Bill published in the summer and then, because of consultations with every section of society, produced a mark 2 Bill in November.
I agree with William Hogarth, that well-known leader of the seamen, who said:
We are witnessing the last days of the old regime as epitomised by the 1894 Act.
In view of what I have heard the seamen's leaders saying, I cannot believe that they are almost seething about their conditions and about the dangers of the penal Clauses. The penal Clauses are the most controversial part of the Bill. Nobody, least of all the union, denies the need for discipline. The sea is a cruel master. Emergencies are sudden. Survival is often slender. Danger is ever present. The National Union of Seamen has said:
The safety of men and ships in which they sail has always been given the highest priority by the National Union of Seamen.
Clause 28 is a must for a union. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not accept some Clauses, the seamen need them; and I applaud the changes which have been made to the Bill.
If he does not think me impertinent, I want to compliment my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the way he answered questions about communicants with the union. We frequently speak about industrial democracy and about making contacts with the men and seeing their point of view. Both Ministers have done that to the nth degree on the Bill. As I said about the somewhat less happy phase of the debate, if earlier there had been closer contact by the union with back benches some things which were said might not have been said.
There are many good things in the Bill. Clause 37 is the most important Clause, speaking as a member of a trade union. I believe that ships are floating factories. I want conditions for merchant seamen to be as near as possible to those that exist in factories on the land. I

agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said about the need for thought to be given to the welfare and working conditions of the men, following the 1966 strike. Britain has the finest seamen and the highest standard of discipline in the world. I believe in industrial discipline. It is courageous of the Minister to introduce the beginnings of disciplinary committees; this is a major advance. Some people are scared stiff of this concept. We on this side are not. It is an important beginning to securing what we hope will be conditions approximating to working conditions in factories ashore.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman pointed at me when he used the expression "scared stiff". That is not a fair expression. All I want to do is to see the best discipline, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, not altered just because it is so good.

Mr. Johnson: That is a non sequitur. It does not follow that what is now the highest standard in the world will be lost merely by attempting to introduce what on shore has been over the years a first class exercise between employer and worker.
There is a need for flexibility and tolerance for men working on board vessels. The Minister spoke about the personality of the master. Like my right hon. Friend and the N.U.S., I believe that the master must always be in charge. I believe, as they do, that it is on the initiative of the ship's master that a charge goes forward.
I have the highest hopes of the Bill in its mark II form. I hope that any earlier misunderstandings and any potential dangers will soon be cleared away. The Under-Secretary of State today gave an assurance that, if both sides of the industry wish it, changes will follow. I am sure that my hon. Friend meant that and that both the employers and the men will accept it. As one who served on the Standing Committee, which was most harmonious, I wish the Minister success. He has had success in the past few weeks, and I am sure that he will have it in future. He deserves success, and so do the men who go to sea on our behalf.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Horner: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) spoke of the dangers of


disciplinary committees. I admire his consistency. On every occssion that this matter has been raised he has made his opposition plain. He has introduced a variety of points, and has always condemned the proposition. Tonight, he reminded me of a bosun's " peggie ", whose job, among other things, is to bring the food of the bosun and the bosun's mate from the galley.
On the voyage that I have in mind, the bosun's mate consistently objected to the quality of the food. He raised his objections with the bosun's " peggie ". After about 4½ months at sea, the bosun said to the bosun's mate, "You have been on about the food throughout the trip. What is wrong with it? ", and the bosun's mate said, "Look at the shape of it". He objected to the shape of the duff. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester has been objecting to the shape of the Bill during its voyage in the last four months.
I said earlier that I had sought to ascertain the number of cases which have resulted in prosecutions of seamen under the existing law in the last five years. I told the house that I had been defeated in my search. I have now succeeded in the search. The total number of seamen prosecuted under the obnoxious 1894 Act in the last five years is four. The total amount of fines collected from those four prosecutions is £25. This is a tribute to the good sense of the seamen which has prevailed during the operation of the 1894 Act which the Bill replaces.
I hope that we shall try to keep matters in perspective and that those of my hon. Friends who have felt that more should be done will feel that what has been promised to be done, and the endeavour of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to bring about consultations between the two sides of the industry, will produce the avenue which we have been seeking and will obviate the impasse which we might have encountered earlier today.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend would, I think, agree that the argument could be used both ways. It could be that there have been so few prosecutions because the provisions were not needed and the industry could do without them. Others have urged that the presence of the Acts has acted as a buffer. After

what my hon. Friend has said before, I very much welcome what he has just said.

Mr. Horner: Everyone hopes that the discussion earlier today, and the objections raised by one section of the industry to certain provisions, will in no way tarnish or diminish the pride which the Government are entitled to take in honouring the undertaking they made about three years ago that they would seek to reform the old, outmoded, creaking legislation. They have done that.
If I have any misgiving about the Bill it is whether we have done enough. We have all talked about flexibility, and have touched on the new features emerging in the Merchant Navy. Perhaps within a few years the officer on the bridge will also be performing much of the work now done by the engineer below. Crews will not be divided between deck and engine room, and the multiplicity of tasks that must be performed to an increasing degree of skill, requiring increasing technical knowledge, will be done by the single all-purpose crew. Those are the kind of developments that are emerging in respect of the employment of seamen and officers.
Let us consider the employment of ships and what they will be required to do. In the next decade that will be covered by this legislation there is the possibility of million-ton tankers. Already there are 250,000-ton tankers, reaching up to 500,000 tons. I do not know whether it will ever be possible to build millionton tankers, but that is the proposition that is emerging. Therefore, I wonder whether we have seen far enough ahead. We have tried to throw off the shackles of the past, and I think that we have done so. My right hon. Friend said earlier this evening that the Government are fully conscious of the need to maintain flexibility, and this was encouraging. I hope that the Bill will in no way limit the scope or flexibility of the Government or the industry, and that we shall not say in the future that it would have been better if we had not done this or that. My misgivings do not go very deep. Because of the way in which the industry has approached this problem and is continuing to do so—and I hope that it will be inspired by the debates here—it may well be that they are wholly misplaced.
I regarded it as an honour to serve on


the Standing Committee. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the courtesy and sympathy he showed throughout our long sittings, which have brought about the situation in which this can now be an agreed Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

KENSINGTON ROAD BRIDGE, NORTHOLT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

12.34 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The issue which I am raising tonight has caused grave dissatisfaction, irritation and annoyance to people who live and work in my constituency.
The Kensington Road bridge has become a talking-point over the past six months in every club and "pub" in that part of my constituency, and, more than that, one of the serious consequences of the present state of affairs is that all forms of authority have been held in contempt, whether the Ministry of Transport, the Ealing Borough Council, councillors and Members of Parliament themselves, or anyone else involved, because people have been trying to find out who is responsible for replacing the bridge and why something has not been done, even as an interim measure.
As its name implies, the Kensington Road bridge is in the Kensington Road, which is a district road linking Ruislip Road, a major roadway, with the well-known Western Avenue. Because of the closure of Kensington Road and the condemning of the bridge, vast loads of traffic during rush hours which would normally have used the bridge have had to use other link roads going to or coming from the Ruislip Road and Western Avenue. It is no exaggeration to say that, at one time in the early stages after the closure, in the area known as the Target roundabout in Northolt there was at rush hours not only grievous traffic chaos, but sometimes real danger to life and limb for ordinary people who wished to cross that road.
In consequence of the closure of the Kensington Road bridge and the apparent lack of anyone anywhere to do anything about it, I have had complaints from various trade unions that there members have been delayed getting to work and returning home, and from industrialists who have pointed out the effect that the closure of the road for such a long period has had on their industrial endeavours. In addition, because large transport vehicles have used quieter smaller streets in the vicinity, causing irritation to the people living in those streets, I have been approached by residents' associations.
It is alarming that in this modern age a major link road could be closed for so long. The consequence has been grave industrial upset, social irritation and traffic chaos twice a day. It is probably fair to say that, against the background of what has happened, history would call the story of this bridge the sad saga of the Kensington Road bridge. I venture to suggest that even the apocryphal story of the bridge on the River Kwai had not all the frustrations and irritations connected with this bridge in my constituency.
As long ago as November 1926, the then borough council appointed consultants to prepare a scheme for the improvement of Kensington Road, including the construction of the bridge. In January, 1968, application was made for the Minister's approval in principle for the raising of a loan of £124,000 in respect of improvements to Kensington Road, including the reconstruction of the bridge. In February, 1968, the Ministry of Transport asked for a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs of the scheme, and later, I understand, a detailed scheme for improvements to Kensington Road, including reconstruction of the bridge, at an estimated cost of £147,500, was approved by the local services committee of the council, and the committee also authorised the chairman to approve a list of tenderers and approved the invitation of tenders for the scheme.
One of the complications of this sad saga is that the bridge is jointly owned by the London Borough of Ealing and the British Waterways Board. Part of the trouble has been in trying to find out how much the board should pay for the construction of a new bridge and how much the council should pay. The


council had plans in any case for reorganising the whole road and making it a dual carriageway. When the old bridge was condemned, the council, rightly, thought it wise to try to get a dual carriageway where there was a single carriageway before. The result of all these complications is to prevent a new bridge being built in Kensington Road, and all the chaos, upset and frustration have continued.
Some months ago, I suggested to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and to the borough engineer, a very able man whom Ealing is fortunate to have, that, whilst all this bickering, discussion, theorising and planning were going on, it might be wise to put up a temporary structure. I suggested a Bailey bridge. It has been done in many other parts of the country. I was responsible for building Bailey bridges during the war, when 100 Sappers could put up a 110 feet triple single or a 100 feet double single Bailey bridge in a matter of hours. Construction firms have put up Bailey bridges as emergency measures. I cannot understand why it has not been done in this case.
I do not want to be told that the reason it has not been done is the cost involved. I understand that a single carriage Bailey bridge would cost about £20,000 and a double carriage one £30,000. We have already been nine months without a bridge. The product of 1d. rate in Ealing is about £97,000 and it is not unreasonable to suggest that it would be well worth a ¼d. or ½d. rate to get a Bailey bridge to avoid the continuation of all this upset and chaos.
There is much more I would like to have said, but time will not permit me to do so. I remind my hon. Friend that, even if a bridge were started now, it would be 1971 before it could be ready. He and the local authority must look hard again at my suggestion of a Bailey bridge in the meantime, because the cost argument is no longer of consequence.
I ask my hon. Friend to issue his approval immediately the local authority applies for loan sanction for the cost of rebuilding the bridge. I understand that it would be less the amount of the British Waterways Board's contribution. I hope that Ealing Council will get its sanction by return of post from the Ministry, because the people in the area who live near the bridge or have to use these roads

are, to use ordinary language, "fed up to the teeth" with what I can only describe as bureaucratic discussion, examination and planning. Every possible excuse has been offered. I do not blame anyone. I do not blame the local council or its engineer's department or the Ministry. If it is the system that is at fault, let us change it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to the proposal for a Bailey bridge. This is a possible temporary solution for the next 18 months. For the interim period, such a bridge would be the answer. I urge him to co-operate fully with the council in its endeavours to get rid of what has become a sore point of grave irritation and annoyance in my constituency.

12.45 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I know that the reconstruction or replacement of this bridge is a matter which is causing considerable concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I appreciate that he has wanted the views of his constituents and the borough council represented fully and fairly, but I might be tempted to ask him just how far an hon. Member should go in seeking these ends, for he has put down seven Questions on the subject over the past few months and has written to me twice about it. He has also personally seen me twice; we discussed it as recently as last night.
In reply, however, I have had to make it clear that as the bridge is situated on a district road for which the London Borough of Ealing is the highway authority, the question of replacement is primarily a matter for the borough.
Kensington Road is one of the links between Ruislip Road and Western Avenue, the trunk road A.40, and it includes a canal bridge the structure of which is the property of British Waterways Board. The road has a 30 ft. carriageway while the bridge provides only a 20 ft. carriageway and a footpath 5 ft. wide.
On 5th August, 1969, the British Waterways Board, in examining the carrying capacity of all its bridges, advised the borough engineer that its initial assessment indicated that the Kensington Road bridge should be closed to all forms of vehicular traffic. The board proposed to


start preparation of a scheme either to strengthen or reconstruct the bridge. Meanwhile, the bridge was closed to vehicles, but it has remained open for pedestrians.
On 20th August, 1969, in reply to a request from the borough engineer, the board offered to contribute to the council a sum equal to the approved estimated cost of replacing the bridge on its existing line and width, together with a commuted sum in recognition of the board's liability to maintain the structure. At this time, the borough was planning for a wider bridge than appeared to be immediately necessary. For this, it would have to meet only the excess cost over the amount which the British Waterways Board would contribute. It therefore instructed consultants to design a bridge with dual carriageways, since it planned ultimately to improve Kensington Road to this standard.
Ealing applied to the Ministry to sponsor a loan for the excess cost. At a meeting with the borough engineer, the consultants, and British Waterways Board on 22nd September, 1969, Ministry representatives indicated that a proposal to construct a bridge with a single carriageway to meet the immediate needs would merit much higher priority than one with dual carriageways.
Consequently, at its meeting on 2nd December, 1969, the council approved a recommendation that its consultants be instructed to prepare a scheme for the construction of a replacement bridge having a single cariageway and two footways, with a temporary footbridge for the use of pedestrians during the construction period.
The council also decided to apply to the Minister for loan recommendation for the additional cost of this scheme over and above the amount of the contribution promised by the Waterways Board. We immediately promised that this recommendation would be made. That meets my hon. Friend's request about dealing with loan sanction forthwith.
I should make it absolutely clear that the Ministry has only a minor rôle in this matter. The Borough of Ealing is responsible for handling the highway problems arising from the closure of this bridge, in conjunction with the Water-

ways Board. The Ministry is really only concerned from two aspects; that is to say, recommendations for loan sanction, and grant-aiding expenditure by the board in the replacement of this weak bridge.
The present position is that tenders for the construction of the new bridge were being opened by the Borough of Ealing last Friday. These tenders will then be examined by the consultants, who will recommend which should be accepted. I understand the chairman of the Ealing Highways Committee has authority to accept a tender, so this should cut out delay in calling a committee. Before doing so, the chairman will need to know the amount of the Waterways Board's contribution. This will enable the borough engineer to determine the balance which will need to be provided by Ealing, and for which loan sanction will be required.
The Waterways Board, meanwhile, has obtained from its consultants an estimate of the notional cost of reconstructing the bridge to its existing standards. The estimate has been approved by the Ministry, and the board will now be able to apply to the Ministry for the necessary grant. The Ministry, for its part, will reimburse the board its actual approved expenditure.
My hon. Friend has been concerned by the inconvenience suffered by drivers for whom the closure of this bridge has caused detours. He considers that a temporary bridge should have been provided meanwhile. The Borough of Ealing's view, however, is that the provision of a temporary bridge would have been unduly expensive and could well have delayed the provision of a new bridge. I know that my hon. Friend has said that he does not want to hear that, but I have to tell him that the borough council is the highway authority and that it is its considered opinion that, apart from the cost, the construction of a Bailey bridge or a temporary structure might have delayed the provision of a new bridge.
Had it been provided on the line of the condemned bridge it would have had to be removed before reconstruction could start. Had it been provided elsewhere, for instance alongside the existing bridge, the provision of temporary approach roads would have been needed,


involving encroachment on to land outside the highway boundaries.

Mr. Molloy: It is quite possible to build a Bailey bridge over another bridge. I have seen it done. Traffic can run over the Bailey bridge while the condemned bridge underneath is removed. This has been done in other places and I still say that it is the answer here.

Mr. Brown: With respect, I am not a highway engineer and I can only take the advice of my Department—

Mr. Molloy: It is bad advice.

Mr. Brown: —and of the borough engineer, to whom my hon. Friend has paid tribute as being an outstanding engineer.
Had it been provided elsewhere, for instance alongside the existing bridge there would have been the need for temporary approach roads, involving possibly the buying of land, because the roads would have to be clear of the bridge to avoid interference with reconstruction work.
My hon. Friend instanced earlier today two other sites in London where temporary bridges have been provided, at Cannon Street and at Finchley Road. He intimates that if it can be done there, it can be done at Kensington Road. The answer is that the situations are not directly comparable. In Finchley Road, the temporary bridge has been provided to facilitate the construction of a pedestrian subway. In Cannon Street, it is to

allow the strengthening of the roof of the Underground and an extension to the Underground station. Both roads, moreover, carry a very heavy load of traffic throughout the day and no diversionary routes are readily available.
I can only re-emphasise that the Ealing Borough Council considered most carefully whether a temporary bridge should be used on the Kensington Road site, but decided that it was best to get on with providing the new bridge in the shortest time possible. It hopes to be able to let a contract shortly and expect that the new bridge will be open to traffic in less than a year from the start of work.
Clearly, drivers are bound to suffer some inconvenience and delays while the bridge is being reconstructed, but this is unavoidable in the circumstances. I understand, however, that there are three main alternative routes available between Ruislip Road and Western Avenue, namely, Church Road, Oldfield Lane and Greenford Road.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's great desire to see an end to the present delays and diversions, and I pay him tribute. No one could have worked harder to get things moving in this respect, but I feel sure that if he is a fair man, and I believe that he is, he will agree that my Department has certainly dealt as expeditious as possible with the difficult problems that have been caused by the need to replace the bridge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to One o'clock.